HF 

H3Z 


$B 


\ 


LO 
CO 

co 


o 


THE  RECIPROCITY  TREATY 


HAWAII 


SOME  CONSIDERATIONS 


AGAINST  ITS  ABROGATION 


WITH 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  RELATING  TO  THE  TREATY. 


BY 


GEO.   S.  (BOUT WELL, 

Counsel  to  Hawaiian  Legation. 


WASHINGTON: 

JUDD  &  DETWEILER,  PRINTERS  AND  PUBLISHERS. 
1886. 


THE  RECIPROCITY  TREATY 


H  AWAI  I 


SOME   CONSIDERATIONS 


AGAINST  ITS  ABROGATION 


WITH 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  RELATING  TO  THE  TREATY. 


BY 


GEO.   S.    BOUTWELL, 

l\ 

Counsel  to  Hawaiian  Legation. 


WASHINGTON  : 

JUDD  &  DETWEILER,  PRINTERS  AND  PUBLISHERS. 
1886. 


HP/73 
£6 


INDEX  TO  APPENDICES. 


I'A'tK. 


Keport  of  House  Committee  on  Foreign  Aifairs,  1883,  .  .  .  0 

Report  of  commission  to  investigate  alleged  frauds  under  Hawaiian  Reciprocity 

Treaty,  .  .  .  .11 

Extract  from  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  1883,  .  .  .17 

Extract  from  letter  of  the  Hawaiian  Minister,  .  .  .  .  .  1!) 

Extract  from  letter  of  the  Secretary  <>f  State  to  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign 

Relations,  ......... 

Report  of  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  1884,  .... 

Letter  of  American  Minister  at  Honolulu,  with  table,  showing  ownership  of 

Hawaiian  plantations,     ......  .       :{() 

Statement  of  political  value  of  treaty,         .  .  .  .  .  .31 

Abstract  of  Hawaiian  and  New  York  laws  regarding  labor.  .  .  i 


RECIPROCITY  TREATY  WITH  HAWAII. 


No  measure  ever  had  stronger  or  higher  endorsement  by  states- 
men of  both  political  parties  of  the  United  States  than  the  Recipro- 
city Treaty  between  Hawaii  and  the  United  States.  It  opened  a  very\ 
profitable  trade  to  citizens  of  the  United  States,  more  particularly  of 
California,  creating  a  free  market  for  productions  and  manufactures  i 
of  the  United  States,  ranking  third  in  importance  to  the  trade  of 
San  Francisco,  leading  to  the  building  of  between  forty  and  fifty 
vessels,  steam  and  sailing,  in  American  ship-yards,  and  their  constant 
employment  till  one-fourth  of  all  the  arrivals  and  departures  of  vessels 
under  the  American  flag  in  foreign  trade  to  and  from  San  Francisco  are 
engaged  in  that  trade.  It  led  to  the  building  of  large  sugar  re- 
fineries in  San  Francisco  to  supply  the  Pacific  slope  and  contiguous 
territories  with  refined  sugar,  to  a  profitable  investment  of  American  ; 
capital  in  planting  commercial,  banking,  and  trading  enterprises  in 
Hawaii  and  California  to  an  amount  of  over  thirty  millions  of  dollars, 
and  all  of  this  without  injury  to  any  other  American  interest.  The  ' 
amount  of  sugar  upon  which  these  enterprises  depend — 80,000  to 
90,000  tons — does  not  amount  to  (7  %)  seven  per  cent,  of  the  con- 
sumption of  the  United  States,  and  a  commission  of  investigation 
have  shown  that  100,000  tons  would  be  the  maximum  production 
of  the  islands. 

The  treaty  gives  profitable  employment  to  the  laboring  classes  in 
Hawaii,  aids  the  prosperous  development  of  that  kingdom,  makes 
permanent  its  political  independence,  and  thus  saves  the  United 
States  from  the  serious  complications  which  would  arise  from  any 
attempt  on  the  part  of  any  other  power  to  establish  itself  in  those 
islands. 

These  results  would  not  seem  of  themselves  to  constitute  a  valid 
reason  for  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty.  But  while  the  treaty  could 
make  possible  these  benefits,  it  could  not  regulate  the  distribution  of 
the  profits,  which  depended,  as  a  matter  of  course,  upon  the  enterprise, 
vigor,  and  perception  of  the  individuals  who  first  availed  themselves 
of  its  advantages,  and  it  was  not  provided  that  it  should  terminate 
for  the  reason  that  American  citizens  found  it  profitable. 

The  rivalries,  jealousies,  and  sharp  competitions  of  trade,  how-  \ 
ever,  have  led  to  charges  against  and  opposition  to,  the  treaty  itself ; 

M152378 


which,  though  groundless  and  wrong,  have  once  imposed  on  a  com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Representatives.  (See  Appendix  A.) 

That  committee,  however,  did  not  recommend  abrogation,  as  it 
recognized  the  great  national  interests  involved  and  the  importance 
of  the  treaty  to  the  country  in  the  future  development  of  the  com- 
merce of  the  Pacific.  It  only  recommended  investigation  of  the 
alleged  "  evils"  to  see  if  amendments  were  desirable. 

An  investigation  was  ordered  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
Hon.  Chas.  J.  Folger,  who  appointed  a  commission  of  inquiry,  which 
reported  that  the  allegations  against  the  treaty  were  groundless. 
(See  Appendix  B.)  Mr.  Folger,  in  his  report  as  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  for  1883,  alluded  to  the  commission  and  its  report  which 
(see  Appendix  C),  showed  how  the  committee  had  been  misled.  The 
report  was  not  regarded  as  wholly  fair  by  Hawaiian  officials,  as  is 
shown  by  a  letter  of  the  Hawaiian  minister  in  transmitting  it  to  his 
government,  a  part  of  which  was  published  in  the  Hawaiian  papers. 
(See  Appendix  D.) 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shows  that  many  classes  of  Amer- 
ican citizens  are  benefited  by  the  treaty.  It  should  be  remembered 
that  American  goods  are  made  free  of  duty  in  Hawaii  by  the  treaty 
while  goods  of  other  nations  are  subject  to  duty.  Allusion  is  made 
by  him  to  a  monopoly  in  sugar  which  then  existed  in  California  as 
not  being  a  result  of  the  treaty.  That  monopoly  no  longer  exists; 
on  the  contrary,  there  is  in  San  Francisco  at  the  present  time  a 
"  sugar  war  between  the  rival  refineries,  which  has  reduced  the  price 
of  sugar  to  "  a  point  cheaper  than  ever  before. 

Efforts  are  being  again  made  to  procure  the  abrogation  of  the 
treaty,  and  much  stress  is  laid  upon  the  loss  of  revenue  to  the  United 
States,  which  is  figured  (at  an  exaggerated  rate)  upon  the  duties 
which  would  be  leviable  upon  the  grades  and  quantities  of  sugar 
imported  under  the  present  favorable  conditions  of  trade.  It  would 
seem  more  fair  to  take,  as  a  basis,  the  duties  upon  the  grades  and 
quantities  which  would  probably  be  introduced  if  the  treaty  were 
abrogated.  To  claim  that  the  same  trade  would  exist  without  the 
advantages  of  the  treaty  would  be  to  give  away  the  case  of  the  oppo- 
sition by  showing  that  there  were  no  great  advantages  given  by  the 
treaty. 

When  the  treaty  was  made  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  pointed 
out  that  the  remission  of  duty  would  not  occasion  any  loss  of  reve- 
nue, but  that  it  would,  to  a  small  extent,  reduce  the  increase  of  reve- 
nue growing  out  of  the  increased  consumption  of  sugar.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  entire  importation  of  sugar  rom  Hawaii  does  not  now 


amount  to  much  over  15  per  cent,  of  the  increase  alone  in  the  con- 
sumption of  the  United  States  since  the  treaty  was  negotiated. 

Of  course  the  trade  has  grown.  What  else  was  expected  when  the 
treaty  was  made?  Of  course  Hawaii  has  been  benefited.  What 
statesman  would  wish  otherwise  ?  If  it  had  not,  what  profit  would 
there  be  in  trading  with  that  country?  But  when  complaint  is  made 
that  the  importations  from  Hawaii  to  the  United  States  have  in- 
creased fivefold,  why  not  remember  that  the  exports  of  the  United 
States  to  Hawaii  have  also  increased  fivefold?  If  the  United  States 
has  relinquished  duties  so  also  has  Hawaii. 

Much  is  said  of  the  balance  of  trade.  It  has  been  said  that  the 
duties  remitted  equaled  the  cost  of  exports  on  the  assumption  that 
$3,000,000  in  duties  were  remitted.  No  such  sum  is  remitted  (see  Mr. 
Folger's  report) ;  and  if  it  were,  it  is  also  true  that  the  cost  of 
carriage,  the  freights,  commissions,  insurance,  and  profits  on  the 
goods  inure  to  citizens  of  the  United  States.  What  pays  the  cost  of 
maintaining  the  commerce  employed,  interest  on  capital,  &c.  ?  Let 
one  illustration  show.  The  cost  of  rough  lumber  appears  in  the 
statistics  at  $8.00  per  thousand  ;  it  sells  at  Honolulu  for  $20.00  per 
thousand!  That  is  to  say,  it  takes  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade 
s^O.OO  of  imports  of  sugar  to  pay  for  $8.00  exports  of  lumber.  The 
fact  that  many  of  the  exports  to  Hawaii  are  bulky  articles,  such  as 
lumber,  hay,  grain,  agricultural  implements,  &c.,  is  alluded  to  by 
Secretary  Folger  in  his  report.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  the 
duties  collected  in  case  the  treaty  should  be  abrogated  would  not 
necessarily  nor  probably  equal  the  duties  remitted.  See  also  the 
letter  of  Secretary  Frelinghuysen  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  of  the  Senate,  Appendix  E  ;  and  the  report  of  Senate  com- 
mittee, Appendix  F. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  treaty  brings  the  product  of  cheap  labor 
into  competition  with  American  labor.  As  a  matter  of  fact  farm 
labor  is  as  dear  in  Hawaii  as  in  California  or  Louisiana ;  but  how 
can  competition  be  possible  in  sugar  when  all  the  sugar  raised  in 
Hawaii  makes  less  than  7  per  cent,  of  the  importation  into  the 
United  States?  It  is  true  that  the  Eastern  refiner  may  claim  that  he 
meets  the  products  of  San  Francisco  refineries  in  the  territories  con- 
tiguous to  California,  but  that  is  a  natural  and  beneficial  result  of. 
the  competition  of  trade.  The  San  Francisco  refiner  has  free  sugar 
from  Hawaii.  The  Eastern  refiner  has  all  the  free  sugar  of  Louis- 
iana and  the  benefit  of  the  drawback  on  sugars  exported,  which,  in 
1885,  amounted  to  twice  the  whole  product  of  Hawaii.  While  the 
Eastern  refiner  has  nine-tenths  of  the  whole  market  of  the  country 


6 

to  himself  it  would  not  seem  too  much  to  allow  the  Pacific  slope  the 
trade  of  Hawaii,  which  naturally  belongs  to  it,  if  not  drawn  away  to 
Australia  or  Canada  by  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty.  The  Pacific 
States  have  powerful  rivals  to  contend  with  in  competing  for  the 
trade  of  the  Pacific  in  Canada  and  Australia,  and  this  treaty  is  a 
great  factor  in  the  struggle. 

Says  the  San  Francisco  Commercial  Herald  and  Market  Review, 
January  28,  1886: 

Again,  for  the  hundredth  time,  Hawaiian  Reciprocity  is  threat- 
ened, but  we  hope  that  in  this  the  power  of  the  General  Govern- 
ment will  not  be  exercised  to  our  detriment,  as  are  the  steamship 
subsidy  and  silver  questions.  The  trade  with  the  Hawaiian  Islands 
has  grown  into  gigantic  proportions  under  the  fostering  influence 
of  this  treaty;  in  fact  it  is,  proportionately  to  the  population  of 
the  islands,  the  greatest  trade  that  America  enjoys  with  any  foreign 
nation,  and  in  the  sugar  refining  industry  of  this  city  it  has  devel- 
oped one  of  the  most  prosperous  manufacturing  occupations  in  the 
United  States. 

Alread}r  the  line  of  American  steamers  built  in  Philadelphia  to 
run  to  Honolulu  has  extended  its  route  to  New  Zealand,  under  a 
subsidy  from  the  government  of  that  colony  and  of  Hawaii.  The 
cable  routes  on  the  Pacific  will  centre  at  Honolulu,  and  the  opening 
of  a  ship  canal  or  railway  across  the  isthmus  will  inure  largely  to  the 
benefit  of  the  country  holding  the  commerce  of  those  islands.  What 
considerations  for  abrogation  are  shown  which  are  not  dwarfed  in 
the  minds  of  statesmen  by  such  considerations  as  these?  General 
Garfield,  in  advocating  the  treaty,  said  :  "Mr.  Chairman,  there  are 
two  reasons  why  I  specially  desire  the  passage  of  this  bill  in  rela- 
tion to  the  treaty.  The  first  is  on  the  ground  of  the  duty  which  the 
nation  owes  to  the  Pacific  coast;  the  second  is  on  the  ground  of  the 
general  good  of  the  whole  country.  *  *  *  If  we  do  not  make 
this  treaty  schemes  of  annexation  will  vex  us  from  year  to  year  till 
we  shall  be  obliged  to  annex  these  islands  as  a  matter  of  self-pro- 
tection." 

It  is  alleged  that  Hawaii  is  or  will  become  a  Chinese  colony.  The 
fact  is  that  the  emigration  of  Chinese  to  Hawaii  is  forbidden  by  an 
imperial  edict  by  China,  and  their  landing  is  restricted  by  law  in 
Hawaii.  The  Hawaiian  government  considers  the  present  number 
(17,000)  as  large  as  is  consistent  with  its  best  interests,  and  immigra- 
tion of  other  nationalities  is  encouraged. 

It  is  not  here  intended  to  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  the  political 
questions  involved  in  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty.  In  the  appendix 


will  be  found  some  extracts  upon  the  subject.  (See  Appendix  G.) 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  they  are  more  important  than  they  were 
when  the  treaty  was  made  or  when  the  committee  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  reported  that  the  political  stipulations  of  the  treaty 
were  believed  to  be  of  "essential  importance  to  this  country." 

The  abrogation  of  the  treaty  would  destroy  a  valuable  trade  and 
commerce  built  up  under  its' guarantees  by  American  energy,  enter- 
prise and  capital,  cause  a  loss  of  millions  to  American  citizens,  and 
open  possibilities  of  evil  results  to  both  Hawaii  and  the  United  States. 
The  amounts  of  money  involved  in  the  discussion  of  the  treaty  are 
insignificant  compared  with  the  political  importance  of  the  treaty, 
or  the  amounts  which  might  be  involved  in  case  the  islands  are 
cast  adrift  to  seek  other  alliances  contrary  to  the  interests  of  the 
United  States  and  the  security  of  the  Pacific  States. 

Much  is  said  of  extending  American  commerce,  and  of  maintain- 
ing the  Monroe  doctrine  by  the  peaceful  operations  of  trade — yet  it 
is  now  proposed  to  abrogate  a  treaty  which  promises  great  com- 
mercial development  in  the  future. 

As  it  has  been  charged  that  the  Hawaiian  Islands  have  a  system 
of  peonage,  an  abstract  of  the  laws  of  Hawaii  and  New  York  is 
added  in  Appendix  H. 

The  United  States  having  declared  that  it  was  its  settled  policy  to 
exclude  other  nations  from  all  interference  in  the  affairs  of  Hawaii, 
could  that  position  be  maintained  consistently  after  the  abrogation 
of  the  treaty  and  Hawaii  prevented  from  entering  into  reciprocal 
arrangements  with  Australia  or  Canada? 


APPENDICES. 

APPENDIX  A. 
Treaty  with  Hawaiian  Islands. 

January  16,  1883,  Mr.  KASSON,  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Affairs,  submitted  the  following  report : 

The  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill 
(H.  R.  2924)  to  terminate  the  convention  or  treaty  of  June  3,  1875, 
with  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  report  here- 
with a  substitute  for  the  same,  and  recommend  its  adoption  by  the 
House. 

The  committee  have  heard  somewhat  voluminous  arguments  and 
many  conflicting  statements  touching  the  facts  involved  with  the 
question  of  the  total  abrogation  or  modification  of  the  treaty  of  the 
United  States  with  the  Hawaiian  government,  which  went  into 
operation  on  the  9th  of  September,  1876.  There  are  certain  facts, 
however,  which  admit  of  no  difference  of  opinion.  The  relative  ad- 
vantages to  the  people  of  the  two  countries  appear  to  have  essen- 
tially changed  since  the  treaty  went  into  effect.  The  change  of 
these  relations  has  been  chiefly  effected  by  the  very  large  increase 
in  the  production  of  sugar  and  other  products  of  the  sugar-cane  in 
the  Hawaiian  Islands,  and  which  have  been  exported  therefrom  to 
the  United  States  under  the  treaty  in  question.  ^In  round  numbers 
the  quantity  of  sugars  so  imported  into  this  country  free  of  duty, 
under  the  reciprocity  clauses  of  the  treaty,  has  increased  from 
30,000,000  pounds  in  1877  to  106,000,000  pounds  in  1882.  It  is 
alleged,  and  your  committee  is  of  opinion  that  it  is  truly  alleged, 
that  the  intent  of  the  treaty  in  this  respect  has  been  violated  by  the 
introduction  of  grades  of  sugar,  under  the  Dutch  standard  of  color, 
which  are  not  within  the  description  of  the  treaty,  to  wit :  "  Musco- 
vado, brown,  and  all  other  unrefined  sugar,  meaning  hereby  the 
grades  of  sugar  heretofore  commonly  imported  from  the  Hawaiian 
Islands,  and  now  (1875)  known  in  the  markets  of  San  Francisco 
and  Portland  as  Sandwich  Island  sugar,  sirups  of  sugar-cane,  me- 
lada,  and  molasses."  This  result  has  been  accomplished  by  recent 
processes  introduced  for  imparting  an  artificially  debased  color  to 
the  finer  qualities  of  sugar,  which  render  the  Dutch  standard  no 
longer  a  just  method  for  determining  the  quality  and  grade  of  the 
sugar  imported.  It  appears  that  out  of  a  total  of  106,000,000  pounds 
coming  to  the  Pacific  coast  from  Hawaii  in  the  last  fiscal  year 
98,000,000  pounds  came  properly  within  the  Dutch  standard  of 
numbers  10  and  16,  inclusive,  while  in  purity  the  average  range  is 

(9) 


10 

above  95  per  cent.  There  is  no  question  that  this  result  is  entirely 
without  the  intent  of  the  contracting  parties  at  the  time  the  treaty 
was  made.  There  can  be  also  no  question,  therefore,  that  in  this 
respect  the  treaty  has  ceased  to  be  fair  and  reciprocal,  and  should  be 
modified,  or,  in  case  that  is  impracticable,  should  be  denounced 
under  the  right  given  to  each  government  by  its  terms.  There  are 
also  other  modifications,  which  your  committee  believe  it  practica- 
ble to  make,  which  will  secure  a  more  perfect  reciprocity  between 
the  governments  and  the  people  of  the  two  countries.  The  treaty, 
however,  contains  other  stipulations  in  favor  of  the  United  States, 
the  retention  of  which  is  believed  to  be  of  essential  importance  to 
this  country.  The  effect  of  the  treaty  has  already  been  to  give  to 
this  Government  the  benefit  of  a  satisfactory  political  influence  with 
the  government  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  and  to  enable  it  in  all 
cases  to  secure  the  just  rights  of  its  citizens  who  have  already  very 
large  pecuiary  interests  in  Hawaii.  It  is  desirable  to  retain  this 
condition  as  well  with  reference  to  our  future  as  to  our  present 
national  interests. 

These  islands  are  the  nearest  among  the  groups  of  the  Pacific 
ocean  to  our  western  coast,  and  are  the  most  important  in  their  re- 
lations to  our  growing  commerce  with  Asia  and  Australia.  This 
commerce  is  only  in  the  beginning  of  its  development,  and  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  furnish  a  point  on  the  route  so  valuable  and  so 
controlling  that  the  traditional  policy  of  this  Government  is  firmly 
established  against  their  domination  by  any  foreign  government, 
and  against  any  undue  influence  exercised  over  the  same,  or  acqui- 
sition of  special  rights  therein,  by  any  foreign  power.  Your  com- 
mittee believe  that  policy  should  be  maintained,  and  that  extraordi- 
nary measures  on  the  part  of  our  own  Government  to  prevent  such 
foreign  domination  might  justly  be  taken.  The  treaty  in  question 
was  made  with  a  view  to  the  maintenance  of  our  influence  there, 
and  to  the  naval  as  well  as  commercial  security  of  our  interests  in 
the  Pacific.  The  situation  of  the  United  States  gives  to  them  a  nat- 
ural priority  in  the  commerce  between  the  American  and  Asiatic 
coasts.  It  would  be  folly  to  take  any  step  which  might  lose  to  us 
the  most  important  key  to  the  commercial  and  naval  situation. 
Without  going  further  into  the  development  of  these  considerations 
your  committee  are  firmly  of  the  conviction  that  the  treaty  should 
not  be  wholly  abrogated,  with  the  consequent  loss  of  all  its  provis- 
ions for  our  rights  and  security,  but  rather  that  modifications  should 
be  introduced  which  shall  obviate  the  evils  which  have  given  just 
grounds  of  complaint. 

They  therefore  report  to  the  House  a  resolution  in  accordance 
with  the  views  above  expressed,  and  recommend  its  passage. 


11 


APPENDIX  B. 

Report  of  Commission  Appointed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  In- 
vestigate Alleged  Frauds  under  the  Hawaiian  Reciprocity  Treaty. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  August  29,  1883. 

SIR  :  The  undersigned,  appointed  by  you  a  commission  to  investi- 
gate certain  charges  "made  in  Congress  and  in  the  public  prints 
that,  under  color  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  the 
Sandwich  Islands,  June  3,  1875,  sugars  have  been  imported  from 
those  islands  into  ports  of  the  United  States  which  were  not  entitled 
to  exemption  from  duty  thereunder,"  respectfully  submit  the  follow- 
ing report : 

Upon  receipt  of  your  instructions,  dated  May  10,  1883,  we  pro- 
ceeded directly  to  San  Francisco  and  commenced  the  investigation 
in  that  city. 

Upon  examination  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Affairs  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  dated  January  16,  1883, 
and  the  "views  of  the  minority"  accompanying  the  same,  dated 
January  29,  1883,  together  with  "  notes  of  hearings  before  said  com- 
mittee on  the  bill  (H.  R.  2924)  to  terminate  the  convention  or 
treaty  of  June  3,  1875,  with  his  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Hawaiian 
Islands,"  and  also  the  report  on  the  same  subject  from  the  Commit- 
tee on  Finance  of  the  Senate,  dated  February  27,  1883,  we  found 
the  charges  above  referred  to  to  consist  mainly  of  two — 

First.  That  the  class  of  sugars  imported  since  the  treaty  went  into 
effect  differs  from  that  contemplated  in  the  language  of  the  treaty 
itself  and  from  the  importations  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands  prior  to 
said  treaty;  that,  in  fact,  the  process  of  manufacture  in  the  islands 
had  radically  changed,  vacuum-pans  and  centrifugals  having  been 
substituted  for  the  open  kettles  and  ordinary  methods  of  purging 
muscavado  sugars. 

Second.  That  sugars  from  other  countries  were  imported  into  the 
Sandwich  Islands  and  fraudulently  exported  to  the  United  States  as 
Hawaiian  sugars. 

The  treaty  went  into  effect  September  9,  1876,  and  is  to  remain  in 
force  for  seven  years  from  that  date,  "  and  further,  until  the  expira- 
tion of  twelve  months  after  either  of  the  high  contracting  parties 
shall  give  notice  to  the  other  of  its  wish  to  terminate  the  same." 

It  provides  for  the  .admission  free  of  duty  into  the  United  States, 
among  other  articles  grown  and  manufactured  in  the  Hawaiian 
Islands,  of  u  rice,  *  *  *  muscovado,  brown,  and  all  other  unrefined 
sugar,  meaning  hereby  the  grades  of  sugar  heretofore  commonly 
imported  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands  and  now  known  in  the  mar- 
kets of  San  Francisco  and  Portland  as  '  Sandwich  Island  sugar ; ' 
syrups  of  sugar-cane,  melado,  and  molasses." 

In  the  absence  of  samples  of  the  sugars  imported  prior  to  the 
treaty,  none  of  which  appear  to  have  been  preserved,  it  was  evident 


12 

that  the  answer  to  so  much  of  the  first  charge  as  relates  to  the  class 
of  sugars  admitted  was  to  be  found  mainly  in  the  records  of  the 
custom-houses  of  San  Francisco  and  Portland,  and  only  to  be  ascer-. 
tained  by  a  careful  comparison  of  the  classifications  of  sugars  im- 
ported from  the  islands  during  the  years  immediately  preceding  the 
treaty  with  those  subsequently  imported. 

Inasmuch  as  the  statistics  of  sugars  imported  from  the  islands 
heretofore  made  up  and  reported  were  based  upon  estimated  classi- 
fications and  not  upon  the  appraiser's  returns,  the  collectors  of  those 
ports,  at  our  request,  caused  statements  to  be  prepared  from  the  in- 
voices of  each  importation,  showing  the  classification  according  to 
the  appraiser's  report  and  the  number  of  pounds  of  each  grade 
from  July  1,  1873,  to  June  30,  1883,  inclusive. 

The  work  of  compiling  these  statistics  was  done  under  our  super- 
vision, and  we  are  satisfied  that  they  furnish  a  true  exhibit  of  the 
classifications. 

From  these  statements  we  have  made  up  the  accompanying  table 
(marked  "A")  which  shows  the  quantity  of  each  grade,  the  percent- 
age of  each  for  the  several  yea'rs,  and  the  total  quantity  for  the  three 
years  prior  to  and  the  seven  years  since  the  treaty,  with  the  aver- 
age percentage  of  each  grade  for  the  same  periods.  A  second  table 
(marked  "B")  shows  the  total  invoice  values  of  sugars  imported 
each  year,  and  the  average  value  per  pound  prior  to  and  since  the 
treaty,  together  with  the  average  and  total  amount  of  duties  remitted 
thereunder. 

These  figures  show  a  remarkable  increase  in  the  percentage  of  the 
lower  grades  imported  into  San  Francisco  from  July  1, 1875,  to  Sep- 
tember 9,  1876 — while  the  treaty  was  pending — as  compared  with 
previous  and  subsequent  years.  During  that  period  the  proportion 
of  sugars  below  No.  10,  Dutch  standard,  was  62.53  per  cent.,  against 
an  average  of  the  same  grades  of  15.28  per  cent,  in  the  fiscal  years 
of  1874  and  1875,  and  an  average  of  14.52  per  cent,  from  January 
1,  1877,  to  June  30,  1883. 

It  appears  that  up  to  1875  most  of  the  better  grades  of  Sandwich 
Island  sugars  were  sold  in  the  markets  of  the  Pacific  coast  directly  for 
consumption.  Early  in  that  year  the  San  Francisco  refiners  made  con- 
tracts to  purchase  the  greater  part  of  the  crop  of  the  islands,  and  ar- 
ranged with  the  planters  to  make  as  large  a  proportion  as  possible 
dark  in  color,  to  meet  the  then-existing  tariff.  After  the  treaty  was 
promulgated,  the  proportions  of  the  several  grades  became  about  the 
same  as  before  said  arrangement  was  entered  into.  \Vith  this  excep- 
tion, it  does  not  appear  that  there  is  any  substantial  difference  in 
the  character  of  the  sugars  imported  prior  to  and  since  the  treaty, 
nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  the  importations  under  the  treaty 
were  not  such  sugars  as  were  "  commonly  imported  and  known  as 
Sandwich  Island  sugars  "  prior  to  1876. 

Information  obtained  from  a  large  number  of  merchants  and  cus- 
toms officials  in  San  Francisco  and  Portland  familiar  with  the  sub- 
ject was  also  to  the  effect  that  no  material  change  had  taken  place 
in  the  character  of  the  sugars  imported. 


13 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1883,  there  have  been  no  importations  at  Portland  of  Sandwich  Island 
sugar.  It  appeared  from  the  statements  of  merchants  in  Portland 
that  the  direct  trade  between  Portland  and  the  islands,  which  be- 
fore the  treaty  had  supported  regular  lines  of  vessels,  taking  out  as- 
sorted cargoes  of  merchandise  and  bringing  back  cargoes  of  sugar, 
(which  was  sold  for  direct  consumption  without  refining,)  has  been 
broken  up,  the  business  being  entirely  controlled  by  the  San  Fran- 
cisco refinery.  Such  vessels,  being  thus  left  without  return  freights, 
have  been  withdrawn,  and  direct  shipments  of  American  goods  from 
Portland  have  been  discontinued. 

As  the  remaining  charges  could  only  be  investigated  satisfactorily 
in  the  islands,  in  accordance  with  telegraphic  instructions,  we  pro- 
ceeded to  Honolulu,  where  we  arrived  on  the  17th  of  June.  A  delay 
of  a  week  in  the  sailing  of  the  steamer  shortened  our  stay  in  the 
islands  to  fifteen  days,  during  which,  however,  we  visited  a  large 
number  of  the  sugar  estates  in  the  three  Islands  of  Hawaii,  Maui, 
and  Kauai,  and  obtained,  by  actual  inspection  of  the  various  mills, 
full  information  as  to  the  character  of  the  machinery  in  use,  and, 
from  the  managers  of  the  plantation,  details  as  to  the  average  yield 
of  cane,  possible  increase  of  production,  &c.  We  also  saw  the  pro- 
cess of  manufacture  and  the  character  ,of  the  sugar  made,  taking 
samples  of  the  various  grades.  From  data  thus  secured,  which  were 
also  confirmed  and  completed  by  statements  made  by  the  agents  in 
Honolulu  of  the  various  estates,  we  ascertained  the  following  facts : 

No  muscovado  sugar  had  been  made  in  the  islands  for  more  than 
twenty  years  prior  to  the  treaty.  Centrifugals  were  manufactured 
and  introduced  in  the  islands  as  early  as  1850  or  1851,  and  have 
been  in  use  exclusively  for  purging  sugars  ever  since  that  date. 
Vacuum-pans  were  also  generally  used  as  early  as  1865,  and  in  1870 
but  few  planters  boiled  their  sugars  in  the  open  train.  In  1875 
there  was  but  one,  or  possibly  two,  mills  which  retained  the  open 
train,  and  every  mill  started  since  that  date  has  been  equipped  with 
vacuum-pans  and  centrifugals.  The  process  of  sugar-making  is, 
therefore,  unquestionably  the  same  as  prior  to  the  treaty,  and  ac- 
counts for  the  fact,  previously  ascertained,  that  the  quality  of  the 
sugars  was  substantially  the  same  before  as  since  the  treaty. 

The  second  charge  made  is,  that  sugars  are  imported  from  the 
East  Indies  and  China  into  the  Sandwich  Islands,  and  thence  re- 
shipped  to  the  United  States  as  of  Hawaiian  growth  and  manufacture. 
This  subject  has  been  fully  discussed  by  the  American  minister  and 
United  States  consul  at  Honolulu,  in  reports  of  recent  date,  to  which 
attention  is  called.  After  a  thorough  examination  of  the  matter, 
we  are  convinced  of  the  utter  impracticability  of  such  operations. 
The  formation  of  the  islands  is  such  as  in  itself  to  forbid  the  success- 
ful smuggling  of  sugar.  There  is  but  one  port  in  the  kingdom 
where  a  vessel  can  lie  with  safety,  viz.,  Honolulu.  All  the  others 
are  open  roadsteads,  at  which  landings  must  be  made  in  boats,  and 
at  some  of  them  this  is  attended  with  no  little  risk,  even  at  the  most 
favorable  season.  The  landing  of  sugar  at  either  of  these  ports  in 


14 

boats  through  the  surf  would  be  a  tedious  operation,  and,  from  the 
nature  of  the  coast,  must  be  conducted  by  daylight.  In  a  state  of 
society  such  as  exists  on  the  islands,  where  every  new  arrival  or  un- 
usual event  attracts  universal  attention,  the  presence  of  a  sugar- 
laden  vessel  and  the  landing  of  her  cargo  would  of  necessity  involve 
such  publicity  as  to  preclude  the  possible  success  of  the  venture,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  necessary  after-handling  and  reshipment  to  the 
United  States.  This  could  only  be  accomplished  by  collusion  be- 
tween the  shippers  and  the  United  States  and  Hawaiian  officials,  of 
which  there  is  no  evidence  nor  ground  for  suspicion. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that,  while  vague  charges  of  frauds  of  this 
nature  are  made,  no  specific  case  has  ever  been  brought  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  either  Government.  The  allegation  seems  to  have  no  other 
foundation  than  the  fact  that  there  has  been  a  large  increase  in  the 
quantity  of  sugars  sent  to  the  United  States  since  the  treat}' ;  but 
this  increase  can  be  otherwise  accounted  for.  It  is  the  legitimate 
result  of  the  treaty  itself. 

The  total  imports  of  sugar  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands  for  the  fiscal 
year  ending  June  30, 1875,  according  to  table  herewith ,  were  17,063,133 
pounds,  and  from  that  date  to  September  9,  1876,  when  the  treaty 
went  into  effect,  21,414,074  pounds.  The  quantity  imported  during 
the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1883,  was  115,325,077  pounds. 

Immediately  on  the  consummation  of  the  treaty,  which  transferred 
the  duty  of  fifty  or  sixty  dollars  per  ton  from  the  United  States 
Treasury  into  the  pockets  of  the  planters,  a  great  impetus  was  given 
to  the  sugar  industry  of  the  islands.  The  acreage  of  old  plantations 
was  at  once  increased  and  new  plantations  started.  From  statistics 
obtained  in  the  islands  it  appears  that  three  new  plantations  went 
into  operation  in  1875,  five  in  1876,  eight  in  1877,  nine  in  1878, 
eight  in  1879,  four  in  1880,  and  one  in  1882,  bringing  into  cultiva- 
tion over  20,000  acres  of  land  additional,  with  a  new  capital  invest- 
ment of  about  ten  million  dollars. 

The  total  yield  of  the  several  estates  since  the  treaty  corresponds 
with  and  accounts  for  the  importations  into  the  United  States,  as 
shown  by  the  accompanying  tables. 

Among  the  papers  referred  to  us  in  connection  with  the  charges 
before  named  was  a  memorial  of  the  eastern  sugar  refiners  and  mer- 
chants. A  hearing  was  given  to  the  representatives  of  the  refiners 
of  New  York,  Boston,  and  Philadelphia  upon  the  allegations  con- 
tained in  said  memorial.  They  presented  no  testimony,  but  rested 
their  charges  upon  the  language  of  the  treaty  itself,  claiming  "  that 
it  provides  only  for  the  admission  of  muscovado,  brown,  and  unre- 
fined sugars,  whereas  no  muscovado  sugars  have  been  imported 
under  the  treaty,  while  large  quantities  have  been  received  of  what 
are  known  commercially  as  'semi-refined'  sugars,  such  as  are,  by 
reason  of  their  color,  fit  for  consumption  without  refining."  They 
further  claimed  that  "  No.  13,  Dutch  standard,  is  the  clearly-estab- 
lished dividing  line  between  raw  or  unrefined  and  refined  sugar, 
and  that  this  principle  was  recognized  by  Congress  in  its  recent  leg- 
islation on  the  sugar  tariff."  In  the  absence  of  any  knowledge  of 


15 

Sandwich  Island  sugars  in  the  eastern  markets,  the  refiners  and 
merchants  were  doubtless  justified  in  the  inference  that  the  term 
"  muscovado"  was  introduced  because  the  islands  produced  drained 
sugars  of  this  character.  The  non-importation  under  the  treaty  of 
this  class  of  sugar  naturally  led  to  the  belief  that  the  process  of 
manufacture  had  undergone  a  change.  The  fact  is,  however,  as 
before  stated,  that  for  twenty  years  or  more  prior  to  the  treaty  no 
muscovado  sugar  had  been  made  in  the  islands.  Why  the  term 
" muscovado"  was  used  we  are  not  informed.  It  certainly  had  no 
place  in  the  treaty,  and  has  tended  to  mislead  since,  if  not  at  the 
time  of  its  adoption. 

We  took  occasion  while  in  the  islands  to  procure  from  official 
sources  accurate  statistics  and  information  on  some  minor  points 
relating  to  the  workings  of  the  treaty,  which  have  formed  part  of 
the  discussion  of  these  charges  of  fraud,  and  which  appeared  to  us 
relevant  to  the  subject  under  investigation. 

One  of  the  prominent  points  in  this  discussion  has  reference  to 
the  prospective  large  increase  in  the  sugar  production  of  the  islands. 
There  is,  unquestionably,  a  large  amount  of  arable  land  fit  for  sugar 
cultivation ;  but  as,  except  upon  the  Island  of  Hawaii,  the  planters 
depend  largely  upon  irrigation,  the  extent  of  the  water  supply  fixes 
the  limit  of  cultivation,  which  for  this  reason,  it  is  estimated,  can- 
not be  increased  beyond  thirty  to  forty  per  cent.  The  yield  per  acre 
varies  greatly,  and  is  also  largely  controlled  by  the  water  supply. 
Some  estates  produced  the  past  year  five  and  a  half  tons  per  acre, 
while  others  yielded  but  two  to  two  and  a  half  tons,  the  average 
being  probably  less  than  three  tons.  It  should  be  understood  that 
it  requires  an  average  of  eighteen  months  for  cane  to  mature  in  the 
islands,  and  that  not  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  acreage  cultivated 
is  cut  in  any  one  year.  We  are  convinced  that  the  output  of  all  the 
islands,  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances  (unless  by  a  better 
system  of  cultivation),  would  not  exceed  one  hundred  thousand  tons 
of  sugar  per  annum. 

The  rapid  increase  of  sugar  production  created  a  corresponding 
demand  for  labor,  which  could  only  be  met  by  drawing  upon  other 
countries.  The  laborers  on  the  sugar  plantations  are  native  Ha- 
waiians,  Portuguese,  Chinese,  Germans,  and  Norwegians,  with  a  few 
of  the  natives  of  the  South  Sea  Islands  and  New  Hebrides,  and  are 
generally  esteemed  in  the  order  named.  There  having  been  no  re- 
striction upon  the  importation  of  the  Chinese,  the  number  of  these 
who  have  come  to  the  islands  is  greater  than  all  other  nationalities 
combined.  The  "Planters'  Monthly,"  a  magazine  largely  devoted 
to  the  consideration  of  the  labor  question  in  the  islands,  estimates 
the  Chinese  population  in  June,  1883,  at  20,000.  These  are  nearly 
all  adult  males,  and  outnumber  the  native  population  of  the  same 
class.  We  failed  to  find,  however,  any  ground  for  the  charges  of  ill- 
treatment  of  the  laborers.  Many  of  them,  it  is  true,  are  imported 
under  contracts  running  three  or  five  years,  but  these  contracts  are 
fair  to  the  laborer  (see  forms  of  contracts  herewith,  marked  "G"), 
and  are  impartially  enforced  by  the  courts  if  violated.  Official  in- 


16 

vestigation  of  the  condition  and  treatment  of  the  laborers  has  been 
made  by  the  German  and  Portuguese  governments,  with  the  finding 
that  the  laborer  is  well  cared  for  and  the  contracts  respected  by  the 
planters.  It  is  certainly  true  that  the  laborers  as  a  class  are  con- 
tented, and  either  renew  their  contracts  or  engage  in  day  labor,  with 
an  assurance  of  steady  employment,  good  treatment,  and  pay  aver- 
aging from  twenty-two  to  twenty-six  dollars  per  month  of  twenty- 
six  days  of  ten  hours  each. 

Statistics  furnished  by  the  agents  in  Honolulu  show  that  the 
greater  part  of  the  sugar  machinery  purchased  for  the  islands  since 
the  treaty  has  not  come  from  the  United  States,  but  from  England 
and  Scotland,  or  was  manufactured  in  Honolulu. 

The  statement  which  has  been  frequently  made  that  the  greater 
proportion  of  the  sugar  planters  are  American  citizens  we  found  to 
be  without  foundation.  Careful  inquiry  on  this  point  regarding 
each  of  the  estates  on  the  islands  shows  that,  aside  from  the  Plawaiian 
Commercial  and  Sugar  Company  (a  company  organized  in  San 
Francisco),  less  than  one-fourth  of  the  owners  of  sugar  estates  and 
persons  engaged  in  the  sugar  business  are  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  With  a  few  exceptions,  the  business  is  in  the  hand  of  Ger- 
man and  English  citizens  or  Hawaiians.  Among  the  latter  are  some 
who  were  born  in  the  United  States  and,  have  renounced  allegiance 
to  our  Government,  or  who,  born  in  the  islands  of  American  parent- 
age, claim  Hawaiian  citizenship. 

Conflicting  statements  having  been  made  as  to  the  relative  values  of 
imports  into  the  island  from  the  United  States  and  other  countries, 
we  append  a  table  (marked  "F")  compiled  from  the  Hawaiian 
official  records,  showing  the  values  of  such  imports  for  the  years 
1874  to  1882,  inclusive,  and  the  percentage  of  same  from  the  United 
States. 

It  came  to  our  notice  during  the  investigation  that  American  re- 
fined sugar  consumed  in  the  islands  is  manufactured  of  duty-paid 
raw  sugar,  and  is  exported  from  San  Francisco  to  Honolulu  with 
benefit  of  drawback.  Thus,  under  the  operation  of  the  treaty  and 
existing  laws,  the  United  States  not  only  allows  the  Hawaiians  the 
full  amount  of  duty  on  the  sugars  they  produced,  but  also  on  the 
American  refined  sugar  they  consume,  such  sugar  being  sold  in 
Honolulu  cheaper  than  in  San  Francisco. 

The  rice  culture  in  the  islands  has  been  stimulated  by  the  treaty 
even  more  than  that  of  sugar.  According  to  the  Hawaiian  official 
statistics  (see  Table  C),  the  total  exports  of  rice  to  the  United  States 
in  1873  were  892,720  pounds;  in  1874,  885,646  pounds,  and  in  1875, 
1,461,835  pounds.  The  admission  of  this  staple  into  the  United 
States  free  of  duty  has  resulted  in  the  increase  of  its  production 
until,  in  1882,  according  to  the  Hawaiian  figures  for  the  calendar 
year,  there  was  exported  to  the  United  States  12,135,074  pounds, 
being  the  entire  exports  of  rice  from  the  islands,  except  34,401 
pounds,  which  went  to  other  countries.  The  benefit  of  the  duty  re- 
mitted on  rice  goes  almost  entirely  to  the  Chinese,  who,  either  by 
purchase  or  lease  of  lands,  have  secured  control  of  the  rice  cultiva- 
tion. 


17 

It  is  charged  that  the  treaty  has  created  a  sugar  monopoly  on  the 
Pacific  coast  and  increased  the  price  to  the  consumer,  but  we  did  not 
find  this  statement  warranted  by  the  facts.  It  is  true  that  the  re- 
mission of  the  duty  by  the  United  States  has  not  inured  to  the  bene- 
fit of  the  consumer  on  the  Pacific  coast ;  but,  as  before  stated,  the 
duty,  which,  were  there  no  treaty,  would  go  into  the  United  States 
Treasury,  now  goes  to  the  planter,  and  not  to  the  refiner  who  buys 
nearly  the  entire  product  of  the  islands.  The  increased  cost  to  the 
consumer  on  that  coast  of  refined  sugars,  as  compared  with  the  price 
paid  by  consumers  in  the  Eastern  States  (from  2  to  2J  cents  per 
pound),  is  not  the  result  of  the  treaty,  but  grows  out  of  a  monopoly 
of  the  refining  business  in  San  Francisco,  coupled  with  the  still 
greater  monopoly  of  railroad  transportation. 

In  concluding  this  report,  we  desire  to  express  our  appreciation  of 
the  courtesies  shown  and  assistance  afforded  us  by  Hawaiian  officials, 
planters,  merchants,  and  others  in  the  prosecution  of  our  inquiries. 

We  are  also  indebted  to  Mr.  J.  D.  Power,  of  the  special  agent's 
office,  San  Francisco,  who  accompanied  us  to  Honolulu,  for  valuable 
services  rendered  in  the  preparation  of  Hawaiian  statistics  while  we 
were  engaged  in  visiting  the  plantations  upon  the  several  islands. 
Very  respectfully, 

0.  L.  SPAULDING. 
JNO.  E.  SEARLES,  JR. 
A.  K.  TINGLE. 

Hon.  CHAS.  J.  FOLGER, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


APPENDIX  C. 
Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  1883. 

Charges  of  fraud  and  irregularity  in  the  administration  of  the 
law  enacted  to  carry  out  the  treaty  with  Hawaii,  so  far  as  concerns 
the  exemption  of  sugar  from  duty,  having  been  made  both  in  public 
bodies  and  public  prints,  I  appointed  a  commission  of  three  trust- 
worthy persons  (one  of  whom  was  nominated  by  prominent  repre- 
sentatives of  the  sugar  trade  in  New  York)  to  go  to  San  Francisco 
and  Portland,  Oregon,  and,  if  necessary,  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  to 
fully  investigate  the  matter. 

They  were  given  the  fullest  latitude  to  examine  into  all  branches 
of  the  subject,  and  have  executed  the  commission  with  intelligence, 
fidelity,  and  thoroughness.  Their  report,  which  will  be  duly  trans- 
mitted to  Congress,  fails  to  show  that  such  charges  have  any  founda- 
tion. It  tends  strongly  to  prove  that  the  character  of  the  sugar  im- 
ported from  these  islands  since  the  treaty  went  into  operation  is 
essentially  the  same  as  that  which  was  imported  prior  to  the  treaty, 
both  as  regards  the  grade  of  sugar  admitted  and  its  country  of 
origin,  and  that  the  treaty  has  been  fairly  executed.  The  statement 


18 

in  the  report  that  the  sugar  interest  is  largely  other  than  American 
lias  called  forth  from  the  Hawaiian  government  a  counter-statement, 
with  a  table  showing  that  of  $15,886,800  of  assessed  plantation  prop- 
erty over  $10,000,000  is  owned  by  American  citizens.  This  large 
interest,  it  is  claimed,  is  growth  from  the  treaty,  and  that  it  is  profit- 
able to  the  owners,  many  of  whom  are  residents  in  this  coun- 
try. 

The  industry  and  the  free  market  opened  have  given  rise  to  a  trade,  in 
its  nature  and  effects,  like  our  inter-State  trade,  covering  a  wide  range  of 
articles,  affecting  profitably  tJte  American  farmer,  grocer,  and  manufac- 
turer of  small  articles  of  household  and  farm  use,  as  well  as  the  larger 
manufacturers  in  metals  and  of  machinery  and  cottons.  The  exports  in 
these  commodities  have  so  grown  that  the  trade  of  San  Francisco 
with  the  Hawaiian  Islands  is  third  in  its  importance,  being  equaled 
only  by  that  with  Great  Britain  and  China,  and  exceeding  that  with 
Mexico,  Australia,  or  British  Colombia. 

Many  of  the  articles  of  this  trade,  such  as  hay,  grain,  lumber, 
&c.,  are  so  bulky  that  they  employ  a  shipping  large  in  proportion  to 
their  value,  and  much  of  this  is  American. 

The  impetus  given  to  Hawaiian  inter-island  commerce  has  also 
inured  to  the  benefit  of  Americans,  in  calling  for  coasting  steam- 
ers and  sailing  vessels  which  have  been  built  in  American 
ports. 

The  balance  of  trade  growing  from  the  earnings  of  American 
commerce — the  commissions  of  merchants  and  bankers  and  the 
profits  of  American  citizens — is  believed  to  be  in  favor  of  this 
country,  as  the  course  of  exchange,  as  this  Department  is  informed, 
is  constantly  against  the  Hawaiian  remitter  to  the  extent  of  from 
1J  to  2  per  cent.  To  reconcile  this  with  the  statements  of  the  values 
of  exports  from  this  country  to  Hawaii,  and  of  the  imports  into  this 
country  from  that,  which  show  an  excess  of  imports,  the  fact  must 
be  weighed  that  the  commodities  landed  there  from  here  have  an 
added  value  when  they  reach  therefrom  the  cost  of  carriage  which 
adheres  to  them.  The  carriage  is  by  American  vessels  mostly,  and 
the  cost  of  carriage  earned  by  our  citizens  should  be  put  to  that 
side  of  the  account. 

The  report  of  the  commission  shows  that  but  for  the  free  entry 
awarded  by  the  treaty  the  revenue  on  the  sugar  imported  would  have 
been  about  $3,000,000,  computed  at  an  average  duty  of  $3.18  per  100 
pounds.*  Yet  there  is  a  countervailing  benefit  to  our  citizens.  The 
increase  in  value  of  Hawaiian  sugar  has  been  but  $1.57  per  100 
pounds. 

As  the  sugar  comes  in  free  it  may  not  have  been  as  strictly  classified  as 
that  on  which  duty  is  assessed.  That  the  consumer  has  received  some 
benefit  is  thus  shown,  and  this  notion  is  confirmed  by  the  market 
price  of  sugar  in  San  Francisco  before  and  since  the  treaty,  being  an 
average  of  1J  cents  per  pound  in  favor  of  the  consumer  since  the 

*  This  amount  is  much  exaggerated,  being  based   on  $3.18   per    100  pound';  duty, 
n  sucl)  sugars  \\n\\-  (1886),  would  be  about  81.80  per  100  pounds. 


19 

treaty.     Thus  the  loss  of  revenue  is  on  a  trade  which  might  not  exist 
but  for  the  beneficent  operations  of  the  treaty. 

The  portions  of  the  report  now  italicised  are  worthy  of  particular 
attention. 


APPENDIX  D. 

HAWAIIAN  LEGATION, 

WASHINGTON,  Sept.  13,  1883. 

SIR:  I  was  to-day  shown,  through  the  courtesy  of  the  Honorable 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  proof  of  the  report  of  the  commission  to 
investigate  the  alleged  frauds  in  the  Hawaiian  sugar  trade.  The 
report  is  both  fair  and  unfair.  It  treats  fairly  of  the  questions  of 
fraud  and  frankly  states  that  the  allegations  are  without  any  founda- 
tion in  fact,  either  as  regards  the  admixture  of  foreign  sugars  or  the 
quality  of  Hawaiian  sugars,  but  it  dwells  with  peculiar  unction  upon 
the  benefits  the  Hawaiian  planter  receives  without  making  mention 
of  the  exemption  from  duty  of  American  goods  in  Hawaiian  ports. 
It  states  that  the  sugar  consumer  gets  no  benefit,  but  does  not  point 
out  that  the  American  producer  and  manufacturer  does.  The  report 
seems  to  breathe  a  tone  of  lament  that  any  advantages  should  have 
accrued  to  Hawaii  in  the  bargain.  It  contains  an  apologetic  ex- 
planation by  the  Eastern  refiners  as  to  how  they  came  to  make 
charges  which  proved  so  groundless,  which,  they  say,  came  from  the 
use  of  the  word  muscavado  in  the  treaty.  This  I  may  say,  from 
personal  knowledge,  was  because  it  had  been  the  term  used  in  some 
other  treaties  or  proposed  treaties,  and  it  was  owing  to  the  vagueness 
which  had  become  attached  to  this  term  that  the  explanatory  form 
or  clause  was  added  which  really  determined  the  grades  intended. 
The  report  fairly  and  clearly  disposes  of  the  charge  that  the  treaty 
is  responsible  for  the  high  price  of  refined  sugar  on  the  Pacific  coast, 
which  it  ascribes  to  a  local  monopoly  and  not  to  any  effect  of  the 
treaty. 

On  the  whole  you  will  observe  that  the  report  is  a  manly  admis- 
sion that  the  alleged  frauds  did  not  exist,  which  is  all  the  more 
creditable,  as  one  of  the  commission  had  strenuously  insisted  that 
they  did  exist. 

The  statements  in  the  report  regarding  the  proportion  of  American 
citizens  among  the  planters  may  be  an  unintentional  error  or  may 
refer  to  the  laborers.  So  far  as  the  ownership  of  and  capital  employed 
in  the  sugar  productions  is  concerned  I  think  the  report  is  wrong, 
and  beg  you  to  furnish  me  with  late  statistics  touching  this  subject. 

Had  the  commission,  when  it  went  beyond  the  questions  of  fraud 
to  inquire  into  the  benefits  to  Hawaiians  of  the  treaty,  also  alluded 
to  benefit  to  American  commerce  and  trade,  it  would  have  made  the 
report  more  comprehensive  and  satisfactory. 


APPENDIX  K. 

Extracts  from  a  Letter  from  the  Late  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Frelingliuysen, 
to  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  of  the  U.  S. 
Senate,  of  February  12th,  1885,  on  the  Trade  Relations  of  the  United 
States  with  Several  Countries  on  this  Continent. 

Your  attention  may  be  here  invited  to  the  working  of  the  reci- 
procity treaty  with  Hawaii,  which  may  be  taken  as  illustrative  of 
what  similar  treaties  would  effect  in  our  trade  relations  with  the  so- 
called  "  inferior  nations." 

The  trade  between  the  United  States  and  Hawaii  in  1876  and  in 
1884  was  as  follows :  * 


Years. 

Exports  to 
Hawaii. 

]1"K;!r"  ToteU, 

187G                           _                              __     

$809,000 

•SI,  383,000     $2,192,000 

1884                            -                           .     _     

3,523,000 

7,926,000     11,449,000 

I  no  reuse        _               ._      _ 

2,714,000 

<;,.">43.000       9,257.000 

Of  the  total  commerce  between  the  United  States  and  Hawaii 
during  the  year  1884  about  95  per  cent,  was  effected  in  American 
vessels,  showing  that  their  trade,  with  all  its  profits,  freights,  insu- 
rance, commissions,  &c.,  as  well  as  the  regular  profits  on  the  mer- 
chandise imported  and  the  manufactures  exported,  is  in  American 
hands.  In  this  connection  it  may  be  stated  that  the  whole  round 
of  our  trade  relations  presents  no  other  such  favorable  conditions. 

The  latest  Hawaiian  returns  at  hand  are  for  the  calendar  year 
1883.  According  to  these  the  total  imports  into  the  Kingdom 
amounted  to  $5,624,000.  The  imports  of  American  goods  admitted 
free  under  the  reciprocity  treaty  amounted  to  $3,169,000. 

The  imports  of  Hawaii  subject  to  duty  amounted  to  $2,187,000, 
of  which  American  goods  constituted  $813,000  and  British  goods 
$939,000. 

:^,The  importation  of  free  goods  under  the  general  treaty  amounted 
to  $267,000,  in  which  American  gocds  must  have  held  their  full 
share.  It  thus  appears  that  out  of  a  total  import  amounting  to 
$5,624,000  American  products  and  manufactures  amount  to 
$4,000,000. 

The  population  of  Hawaii  is  estimated  at  70,000;  our  exports 
thither  in  1884  amounted  to  $3,523,000 ;  this  shows  a  per  capita 
consumption  of  American  goods  as  they  leave  our  ports  of  a  fraction 
over  $50. 


21 


The  following  statement  shows  the  per  capita  consumption  of 
American  products  and  manufactures  in  the  several  countries  on  this 
continent,  British  North  America  excepted : 


Countries. 


Hawaii. 


Mexico 

Central  America 

Tnited  States  of  Colombia 

Vene/uela 

The  Guianas 

Brazil 

Uruguay      

Argentine  Republic 

Chili 

Bolivia 

Peru 

Ecuador 

Spanish  AVe-t    Indies 

British  West  Jndies  

French  Wot    Indies 

Hayti 

San  Domingo 


Population. 


Exports    from      Amounts 
the  I'nited  per 

States.  capita. 


70,000          s:;.5L>:j.ooo 


00 


9,300,000 

12,744,000 

1  36.] 

2,660,000 

3,608,000 

1  36" 

3,000,000 

6,380,000 

2  09 

2,075,000 

2,427,000 

1  17 

295,320 

2,:  SOB,  000 

7  82 

12,000,000 

S,  (595,  000 

72.1 

500,000 

1,368,000 

2  74 

2,500,000 

">,075,000 

2  03 

2,500,000 

3,267,000 

1  :51 

2,000,000 

'  2,700,000 

1.071,000 

40 

1,000,000 

029,000 

63 

2,307,000 

13,135,000 

5  69 

1,133,000 

8,849,000 

7  98* 

384,000 

1,821,000 

4  7--." 

572,000 

2,760,000 

4  82 

290,000 

1,294,000 

4  46 

Total . 


45,216,320 


75.389,000 


1.668 


In  1876  the  consumption  of  American  goods  in  Hawaii  amounted 
to  $12.66  per  capita.  The  increase  under  the  reciprocity  treaty  has, 
therefore,  been  $37.34  per  capita. 

It  is  not  intended  in  this  communication,  even  for  illustrative 
purposes,  to  create  the  impression  that  any  system  of  reciprocity 
treaties  must  produce  such  favorable  results  in  the  foregoing  coun- 
tries as  has  been  produced  in  the  case  of  Hawaii,  although  the  stim- 
ulus which  reciprocity  treaties  would  give  to  the  development  of  the 
resources  of  many  of  the  smaller  countries,  and  the  consequent  in- 
crease in  the  consumption  of  our  products  and  manufactures,  would, 
undoubtedly,  result  in  a  marked  enlargement  of  the  total  volume  of 
trade. 

As  in  the  case  of  Hawaii,  our  trade  fostered  and  developed  by  re- 
ciprocity treaties  would  be  largely  in  American  hands,  in  the  buy- 
ing and  selling,  in  the  handling  and  shipping,  as  well  as  in  the  pro- 
duction and  manufacture  thereof — and  it  should  be  remembered 
that  in  international  trade  the  handling,  carrying,  and  shipping  are 
secondary  only  to  production,  manufacture,  and  preparation — in- 
deed, it  may  be  questioned  whether  the  com  mission  men,  handlers, 
and  ocean  carriers  do  not  realize  as  much  thereon  as  the  producers. 


99 


APPENDIX  F. 

January  24,  1884,  Mr.  Morgan,  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign- 
Relations,  submitted  the  following  report : 

The  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  to  whom  was  referred  Senate 
joint  resolution  No.  27,  "  as  to  giving  notice  to  terminate  the  con- 
vention of  June  3,  1875,  with  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Ha- 
waiian Islands,"  have  had  the  same  under  consideration,  and  report 
the  same  back  with  the  recommendation  that  the  resolution  be  in- 
definitely postponed. 

As  the  resolution  invokes  the  action  of  the  Senate  to  reverse,  by 
the  vote  of  a  majority  of  the  body,  the  solemn  judgment  of  more 
than  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  expressed  with  reference  to  this  con- 
vention in  1875,  the  grounds  on  which  this  reversal  is  demanded 
j-equire  investigation. 

A  report  from  the  Committee  of  Finance,  made  to  the  Senate  on 
February  27,  1883,  embodies  the  leading  objections  that  have  been 
urged  to  this  convention. 

The  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  not  being  able  to  concur  in 
the  arguments  stated  or  the  conclusions  reached  in  that  report,  state 
the  following  reasons  in  support  of  the  opposite  conclusions : 

If  it  could  be  shown  (as  your  committee  have  failed  to  discover 
that  it  has  been)  that  the  commerce  or  the  revenues  of  the  United 
States  have  not  been  adequately  compensated  by  the  advantages  of 
actual  trade  with  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  under  the  convention  of 
1875,  there  are  other  and  perhaps  higher  considerations  than  the 
relative  money  value  of  that  trade  to  the  people  ol  the  United 
States,  which  establish  the  wisdom  of  the  Senate  in  ratifying  and 
of  Congress  in  legislating  to  carry  into  effect  this  convention. 

Since  the  opening  of  the  Suez  canal  the  great  commercial  nations 
of  Europe,  notably  England  and  France,  have  exhibited  great 
energy  and  activity  in  building  up  trade  and  extending  and  con- 
solidating their  influence  and  power  along  the  western  shores  of 
the  Pacific  Ocean  and  in  the  islands  of  the  South  Pacific.  We  have 
also  extended  our  treaty  relations  to  Corea,  Siam,  Persia,  and  Mada- 
gascar, with  a  view  to  a  future  profitable  trade  with  all  of  the 
countries  of  Asia  and  Australasia. 

Our  transcontinental  railroads  have  greatly  increased  our  trade 
with  all  these  countries,  and  have  earned  large  sums  of  money  in 
the  transportation  of  mails  and  freights  and  passengers.  When  an 
isthmian  canal  shall  have  furnished  quicker  and  cheaper  carriage 
by  steam  vessels  for  freights  and  passengers,  we  will  find  powerful 
rivals  in  the  field  both  by  way  of  the  Isthmus  of  Darien  and  at 
Puget  Sound,  in  British  Columbia.  This  competition  will  also  ex- 
tend along  the  coasts  of  Mexico  and  of  the  Central  and  South  Ameri- 
can States. 

The  stimulus  thus  given  to  commerce  on  the  Pacific  Ocean  will 
increase  rapidly  the  interchange  of  productions  between  all  these 
•  great  countries  until  that  trade  will  equal,  if  it  does  not  exceed,  the 
value  of  the  commerce  across  the  Atlantic. 


The  Hawaiian  Islands  afford  the  only  stopping  place,  in  a  dis- 
tance of  20,000  miles,  between  our  coasts  and  those  of  Japan,  Corea, 
and  China ;  and  from  Panama  to  the  heart  of  those  countries  they 
are  in  almost  the  direct  line  of  travel.  They  are  east  of  the 
meridian  which  touches  the  western  shore  of  Alaska,  and  may  be 
said  to  be  properly  within  the  area  of  the  physical  and  political 
geography  of  the  United  States.  They  are  nearer  to  us  than  to  any 
other  great  power. 

Influences  of  a  social  and  religious  character,  through  which 
these  islands  were,  in  fact,  opened  up  to  modern  civilization,  have 
drawn  those  people  closely  to  us,  and  they  feel  that  they  have  greatly 
profited  by  the  sympathy  and  consideration  of  the  American  people 
for  their  well-being  as  a  nation.  This  feeling  has  been  greatly 
strengthened  since  1875.  Our  liberal  reciprocity  with  them  has 
confirmed  a  mutual  feeling  of  regard,  which  has  never  been  chilled 
by  any  unpleasant  event. 

Hawaiian  trade,  investment,  population,  and  policy  have  been 
greatly  influenced  by  the  convention  of  1875 — so  much  so  that 
almost  every  public  act  relating  to  commerce  has  direct  reference  to 
that  treaty.  American  population  there  has  increased  considerably 
since  1875,  and,  of  the  entire  value  of  sugar-lands  in  the  islands, 
estimated  at  $15,886,800,  as  is  shown  in  the  letter  of  Mr.  Daggett, 
our  minister  to  that  country,  of  October,  15,  1883  (which  is  here- 
with submitted),  $10,235,464  belong  to  Americans.  (See  Appendix 
A.)  These  close  and  cordial  relations  between  the  people  of  the 
two  countries,  in  respect  to  which  the  Governments  also  are  in 
earnest  sympathy,  strongly  forbid  that  we  should  abandon  our  re- 
ciprocal commerce,  or  avert  our  attention,  or  withdraw  our  sympa- 
thies from  the  Hawaiian  people. 

Whether  in  an  honorable  and  peaceful  rivalry  for  the  commerce 
of  the  countries  bordering  on  the  Pacific  Ocean,  or  in  the  protection 
of  our  commerce  or  our  coasts  in  case  of  war  with  any  great  mari- 
time power,  our  relations  with  the  government  of  Hawaii,  consistently 
with  its  independence  and  autonomy,  could  not  become  too  intimate 
for  our  own  welfare. 

A  single  fact,  of  many,  will  suffice  to  illustrate  this  proposition. 
The  kingdom  of  Hawaii  is  the  only  government  in  the  North  Pacific 
Ocean  that  is  not  a  colonial  dependence  of  some  great  power  in 
Europe  or  Asia,  and  it  is  therefore  the  only  neutral  power  in  the 
North  Pacific  Ocean. 

In  the  treaty  of  Washington,  in  1871,  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  agree  between  themselves  that  as  neutral  powers  they  will 
not  in  future  permit  either  belligerent  to  make  use  of  their  ports  or 
waters  as  the  base  of  naval  operations  against  the  other,  or  for  the 
purpose  of  the  renewal  or  augumentation  of  military  supplies  or 
arms,  or  the  recruitment  of  men ;  and  they  agree  to  bring  this  rule, 
with  others,  to  the  knowledge  of  other  maritime  powers,  and  to  in- 
vite them  to  accede  to  them.  This  law  of  neutrality  we  would  be 
bound  to  enforce  against  the  Hawaiian  government  in  case  of  war 
between  the  United  States  and  any  maritime  power;  but,  in  doing 


24 

so,  we  would  deprive  our  war  vessels  of  the  right  to  take  coal  at  the 
Hawaiian  ports  for  a  longer  journey  than  2,000  miles,  while  the 
ships  of  England  or  of  any  other  European  power  would  be  entitled 
to  take  coal  for  a  journey  of  15,000  miles.  This  rule  would  permit 
them,  in  fact,  to  coal  at  Honolulu  and  harass  our  coasts  and  com- 
merce with  the  greatest  possible  advantage,  while  it  would  cripple 
us  essentially. 

The  supremacy  of  England  or  any  great  maritime  power  in  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  would  make  of  this  rule,  on  which  we  in  part  relied 
for  compensation  in  respect  of  the  Alabama  claims,  a  most  formida- 
ble difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  defense  of  our  Pacific  coast  and  com- 
merce. 

The  very  liberal  concessions  made  by  the  Hawaiian  government 
in  favor  of  our  whalers  and  war  ships,  in  article  7  of  the  treaty  of 
1849,  followed  by  the  agreement,  in  the  treaty  of  1875,  that  "  the 
King  will  not  lease  or  otherwise  dispose  of  or  create  any  lien  upon 
any  port,  harbor,  or  other  territory  of  his  dominions,  or  grant  any 
special  privileges  or  rights  of  use  therein,  to  any  other  power,  state, 
or  government,  nor  make  any  other  treaty  by  which  any  other  nation 
shall  obtain  the  same  privileges,  relative  to  the  admission  of  any 
articles  free  of  duty,  hereby  secured  to  the  United  States,"  present 
the  strongest  possible  evidences  of  good  will  towards  us  on  the  part 
of  that  government,  and  disclose  its  confident  reliance  on  our  pro- 
tection against  any  serious  aggression  or  disturbance  from  any  for- 
eign powers.  These  concessions  have  not  been  disputed  by  any 
power,  and  when  we  accepted  them  we  also  accepted  the  moral  duty 
of  an  equivalent  protection  of  the  independence  and  security  of  that 
kingdom.  This  close  relation  of  amity  is,  in  relative  degree,  as  nec- 
essary to  our  welfare  as  it  is  to  that  of  the  people  of  the  Hawaiian 
Islands,  and  should  be  maintained  in  strict  good  faith. 

The  importance  of  the  Hawaiian  treaty,  in  its  political  bearings 
upon  the  United  States,  has  been  recognized  by  Presidents  Tyler, 
Polk,  Lincoln,  Johnson,  Grant,  and  Arthur,  as  indicated  in  messages 
to  Congress.  Our  Secretaries  of  State  have  uniformly  insisted,  since 
the  Hawaiian  government  assumed  treaty  relations  with  other 
countries,  that  the  United  States  must  stand  in  a  nearer  relation 
with  that  kingdom  than  any  other  nation  can  occupy. 

The  material  advantages  of  the  treaty  of  January,  1875.  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  consist  in  the  furnishing  of  useful  and 
lucrative  employment  to  them,  in  increasing  the  supply  and  lessen- 
ing the  cost  of  many  articles  of  general  use,  and  enlarging  the  market 
and  increasing  the  demand  for  their  productions. 

Under  the  first  head,  of  furnishing  lucrative  employment  to  our 
people,  the  advantage  has  been  very  great. 

Many  Americans  have  gone  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  and,  with 
their  industry,  skill,  and  capital,  have  engaged  in  agriculture,  mer- 
cantile pursuits,  navigation,  banking,  printing,  and  many  minor 
mechanical  industries,  from  which  they  have  realized  fair  returns. 
The  transportation  of  articles  of  commerce  has  been  chief! y  carried 
on  by  Americans  in  American  ships. 


25 

The  statement  of  Mr.  Daggett,  already  referred  to,  estimates  the 
amount  of  American  capital  invested  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands  in 
sugar  production  alone  at  $10,235,464  in  1883.  Mr.  Frederick  H. 
Allen,  former  charg6  d'affaires  of  the  Hawaiian  government,  in  a 
statement  which  has  been'  presented  to  the  committee,  makes  the 
following  estimate  of  loans  and  investments  by  Americans,  as  they 
were  in  1882,  viz :  $3,200,000  in  ships  and  wharves,  $3,300,000  in 
loans;  and  he  mentions  other  lines  of  American  steamers  that  were 
then  about  to  be  put  into  that  trade,  so  that  American  capital  to 
the  extent  of  at  least  $20,000,000  has  found  profitable  and  perma- 
nent employment  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands  since  the  treaty  of  1875 
went  into  effect.  The  interest  and  profit  on  this  sum  will  average 
10  per  cent,  per  annum,  yielding  $2,000,000  to  our  people. 

Since  the  treaty  San  Francisco  is,  practically,  the  only  direct 
market  for  the  productions  of  these  islands.  Mr.  Comly,  then  our 
minister  resident  at  Honolulu,  writing  to  the  Secretary  of  State  on 
the  llth  April,  1881,  says: 

The  showing  for  American  shipping  is  gratifying.  Not  only  have  our  shipbuilders 
furnished  nearly  all  the  new  steamers  and  other  vessels  introduced,  and  our  owners 
also  transferred  most  of  the  bottoms  which  have  changed  register  to  the  Hawaiian  flag 
under  Hawaiian  owners,  but  the  bulk  of  all  the  trade  between  the  two  countries  has 
been  carried  under  the  American  flag.  Excluding  whalers,  out  of  235  merchant  vessels 
and  steamers  visiting  Hawaiian  ports  179  were  American,  leaving  60  only  of  all  other 
nations;  total  tonnage,  141,906  ;  American,  99,619  ;  all  others,  42,302.  These  state- 
ments include  also  all  Hawaiian  vessels  sailing,  foreign.  The  Hawaiian  flag  covers 
coasting  sail  vessels,  42 ;  steamers,  8;  sailing,  foreign,  14 ;  tonnage,  10.148.  Nearly 
all  these  vessels  are  of  American  build. 

He  writes  again,  June  6,  1881 : 

The  influence  of  the  reciprocity  treaty  upon  the  increase  of  our  carrying  trade  be- 
tween the  Hawaiian  Islands  and  the  Pacific  coast,  and  upon  the  still  larger  increase 
of  our  shipbuilding  for  Hawaiian  owners,  has  been  one  of  its  most  gratifying  results. 
'  *  Three  years  and  a  half  ago,  when  I  first  reported  for  duty  at  this  post,  there 
was  but  one  island  steamer;  now  there  are  eight,  and  more  ordered,  every  one  of  them 
but  one  American  built.  The  increase  in  sailing  vessels  has  been  still  large]-.  *  *  * 
It  is  but  fair  and  just  to  admit  that  probably  all  this  increased  demand  for  American 
ships  and  shipbuilding  grew  out  of  the  reciprocity  treaty,  and  would  never  have  ex- 
isted except  for  its  generative  power.  This  generative  power  is  reflex  as  well  as  direct. 
It  creates  a  magnificent  increase  of  island  products  ;  this  creates,  both  demand  and 
capacity  for  a  large  increase  of  the  import  trade  from  the  United  States  ;  and  these 
combined  create  the  demand  for  carriers  under  the  American  flag,  and  for  American 
factors,  agents,  bankers,  insurers,  and  producers  of  almost  every  kind. 

The  trade  with  the  islands  is  but  a  drop  in  the  bucket.  But  compare  the  total 
amount  of  her  exchanges  between  the  Hawaiian  Islands  with  those  between  all  other 
countries  and  the  United  States  ;  then  apply  to  this  last  the  same  ratio  of  increase  in 
our  carrying  trade  and  shipbuilding  which  we  have  gained  here;  the  result,  it  seems 
to  me,  would  show  that,  under  like  conditions  of  prosperity  everywhere,  all  fear  of 
the  American  flag  disappearing  from  the  sea  might  be  abandoned.  *  *  * 

If  our  commercial  policy  with  the  Sandwich  Islands  is  to  be  taken  as  only  part  of 
a  great  system  intended  to  take  in  and  bind  together  all  the  two  great  continents  and 
their  adjacent  islands  on  our  side  of  the  world,  it  seems  to  me  that  there  are  such 
grand  possibilities  to  the  near  future  of  the  United  States  in  such  a  scheme  as  would 
make  the  reciprocity  treaty  with  these  islands  a  conspicuous  landmark  in  our  com- 
mercial history. 

The  number  of  steamers  running  between  the  islands  has  increased 
since  that  date  to  ten  or  more. 

The  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  the  year  ending 
June  30,  1883,  states  that  the  total  value  of  all  imports  into  the 


26 

United  States  of  articles  free  of  duty  was  $206,913/289.47,  and  of  this 
sum  there  were  admitted  free  of  duty  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands, 
under  the  treaty  of  1875,  imports  to  the  value  of  $8,029,835.18. 

Our  exports  to  those  islands  for  the  same  period  were  $3,811,913, 
of  which  $35,848  were  coin  and  bullion,  while  our  imports  of  coin 
and  bullion  were  $42,847,  showing  nearly  an  equal  export  and  im- 
port of  coin  and  bullion. 

There  appears,  therefore,  an  excess  of  imports  over  exports  of 
$4,217,922.18.  This  is  practically  the  sum  that  we  admit  free  of  duty 
from  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  the  rest  having  been  set  off  by  the  im- 
portation, free  of  duty,  into  that  country. 

The  revenue  on  this  small  balance  is  an  inconsiderable  item  when 
compared  with  the  $206,913,298  of  annual  importations  which  we 
have  put  on  our  free  list  for  the  bettering  of  the  condition  of  our 
people  at  large. 

But  this  apparent  balance  in  the  exchange  of  commodities  in  sub- 
stance represents  only  the  profits  and  gains  of  our  own  people  em- 
ployed in  agriculture,  navigation,  and  in  trade  and  financial  deal- 
ings with  the  Hawaiian  people. 

The  interest  and  profits  on  the  $20,000,000  of  investments  in  those 
islands,  and  in  wharves  and  ships  and  loans,  calculated  at  a  rate 
lower  than  is  in  fact  obtained,  are  $2,000,000.  The  freights,  insur- 
ance, and  handling  of  produce  interchanged,  mostly  of  heavy  com- 
modities, amounting  in  value  to  $11,841,748,  at  10  per  cent.,  which 
is  far  below  the  actual  cost,  are  $1,184,174,  and  the  commissions, 
earned  almost  exclusively  by  our  own  people,  at  5  per  cent.,  are 
$592,087.40,  and,  if  the  profits  to  our  merchants  are  only  5  per  cent., 
that  sum  is  $592,087.40 ;  in  all,  $4,368,348. 

This  is  the  actual  state  of  trade,  which  accounts  for  the  fact  that 
with  an  apparent  annual  balance  against  us  of  over  $4,000,000  we 
are  not  called  upon  to  ship  coin  or  to  transmit  exchange  to  Hawaii 
to  pay  it.  It  is  paid  to  our  own  people.  The  reverse  of  this  is  true 
of  our  trade  with  England.  During  the  last  fiscal  year  the  apparent 
difference  in  our  favor  between  the  value  of  exports  and  imports  to 
England  was  $197,047,224 ;  but  England  transported  85  per  cent,  of 
our  commerce,  and  the  freights,  insurance,  and  other  charges  which 
we  paid  to  her  people  reduced  the  actual  balance  of  trade  in  our 
favor  to  less  than  $100,000,000.  What  we  export  to  Hawaii  is  con- 
sumed there,  and  amounts  to  $45.44  per  capita,  while  our  imports 
from  that  country  amount  to  60  cents  per  capita  of  our  population. 

These  advantages  of  trade,  which  we  gain  through  our  control  of 
the  commerce  of  these  islands,  are  of  much  greater  value  to  us  than 
the  amount  of  revenue  we  could  have  possibly  collected  on  the  goods 
admitted  under  this  treaty  free  of  duty.  This  trade,  including  ex- 
ports and  imports,  was  in  1875  $1,922,555.  In  the  absence  of  the 
treaty  there  is  no  reasonable  ground  for  supposing  that  it  would 
have  increased  greatly,  if  at  all ;  but  in  1883  it  has  increased  to 
$12,004,526,  and  the  treaty  is  justly  entitled  to  be  credited  with 
nearly  the  entire  increase. 

If  we  take  the  trade  of  1883  as  the  basis  on  which  to  estimate  the 


loss  of  revenue,  instead  of  the  trade  of  1875,  which  would  be  about 
the  true  basis,  still  this  loss  of  revenue  enriches  our  own  people,  both 
because  we  are  the  creditor  country  and  handle  this  commerce  and 
because  the  taxes  we  remit  are  upon  articles  that  are  consumed  by 
our  own  people. 

If  these  islands  furnish  one-tenth  of  the  sugar  we  consume,  being 
admitted  free  of  duty,  it  creates  competition  to  that  extent,  which 
should  correspondingly  reduce  the  price.  The  necessity  of  reducing 
our  present  excessive  revenues  has  earnestly  engaged  the  attention 
of  Congress  for  some  time  past,  and  if  the  entire  customs  duties 
which  we  could  derive  from  articles  of  prime  necessity  imported 
from  the  Sandwich  Islands  should  be  remitted,  the  policy  would  be 
exactly  in  line  with  that  which  our  redundant  revenue  is  compelling 
us  to  adopt. 

The  most  urgent  complaints  against  this  treaty  are  that  it  admits 
sugar  and  rice  free  of  duty,  these  being  productions  that  are  grown 
to  some  extent  in  the  United  States. 

A  sufficient  answer  to  these  objections  is  found  in  the  fact  that 
there  are  no  sugar  or  rice  lands  of  any  consequence  in  the  United 
States  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  it  is  at  least  just  to  that 
important  region  that  it  should  enjoy  the  means  of  obtaining  these 
supplies  on  equal  terms  with  the  country  east  of  those  mountains. 

The  overland  freights  on  Louisiana  sugars  exclude  them  from 
California  and  Oregon,  and  the  Pacific  States  are  therefore  com- 
pelled to  look  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands  for  their  chief  supply.  With- 
out this  treaty  they  must  import  their  sugars,  under  a  heavy  duty, 
from  Hawaii,  the  nearest  and  cheapest  market,  and  pay  for  them  in 
money  or  in  goods  also  taxed  in  that  country,  while  the  States  east 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains  can  exchange  their  untaxed  commodities 
with  Louisiana  for  all  the  sugar  that  State  can  produce. 

Louisiana,  in  1880,  produced  171,706  hogsheads  of  sugar,  and  the 
other  States  7,166;  total,  178,872.  In  1883  the  entire  sugar  produc- 
tion from  cane  is  estimated  at  180,000  hogsheads,  or  180,000,000 
pounds,  which  is  equal  to  about  3.25  pounds  per  capita.  Add  to 
this  the  importations  from  Hawaii,  106,181,858  pounds,  and  the 
total  of  untaxed  cane  sugar  consumed  by  our  people  is  286,181,858 
pounds.  The  amount  per  capita  is  5.20  pounds.  The  per  capita 
consumption  of  sugar  in  the  United  States  is  about  36  pounds,  so 
that  only  one-seventh  of  the  amount  is  on  the  footing  of  home  pro- 
duction, for  which  we  pay  with  our  other  productions.  The  other 
six-sevenths  cost  us  $91,406,717,  and  the  duty  added  of  $46,172,378.85; 
total  cost,  $137,579,095. 

To  pay  for  this  we  send  to  Cuba  $50,440,831  in  money,  that  being 
the  excess  of  our  imports  over  our  exports,  and  we  send  money  in 
about  the  same  proportion  to  all  other  sugar-producing  countries. 

The  entire  balance  of  trade  against  the  United  States  in  all  the 
countries  from  which  we  imported  sugar  was,  on  the  30th  of  June, 
1882,  $113,674,356.  Of  this  entire  sum  nothing  was  paid  for  with 
our  own  productions  except  $4,295,519,  the  balance  in  favor  of  Ha- 
waii, and  all  of  that  was  paid  to  our  own  people  except  $958,000, 


28 

which  was  paid  to  Hawaii  in  foreign  exchange  bought  from  our 
bankers.  « 

These  statements  establish  the  fact  that,  in  proportion  to  its  amount, 
the  Hawaiian  trade  is  far  the  most  profitable  that  we  have  with  any 
country. 

In  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Finance  to  the  Senate,  made 
on  the  27th  February,  1883,  complaint  is  made  of  violations  of  the 
Hawaiian  treaty  by  the  importations  of  sugars  from  other  countries 
through  that  country,  and  that  sugars  have  been  fraudulently  im- 
ported of  higher  grade  than  are  described  in  the  treaty  as — 

Muscovado,  brown,  and  all  other  unrefined  sugars  commonly  imported  from  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  and  now  (1875)  known  in  the  market  of  Sari  Francisco  and  Port- 
land as  Sandwich  Island  sugars. 

It  is  our  fault,  and  not  that  of  the  treaty,  if  we  permit  it  to  be 
violated  by  our  own  officers  in  our  own  ports.  But  these  accusa- 
tions, whether  against  the  Hawaiian  Government  or  our  own,  have 
been  thoroughly  disproved  by  the  report  of  the  commission  sent  out 
to  the  Hawaiian  Islands  in  May,  1883,  by  our  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury. The  sugar  refiners  of  the  Eastern  States,  who  were  most  earnest 
in  these  complaints,  selected  one  of  the  three  members  of  that  com- 
mission, and,  as  they  all  agreed  in  their  report,  it  is  presumably  a 
full  and  fair  statement  of  the  facts. 

As  to  the  importation  of  sugar  through  the  Hawaiian  Islands  from 
other  countries  the  commission  say  : 

After  a  thorough  examination  of  the  matter,  we  are  convinced  of  the  utter  im- 
practicability of  such  operations.  The  formation  of  the  islands  is  such  as  in  itself  to 
forbid  the  successful  smuggling  of  sugar. 

The  tables  showing  the  quantities  of  sugar  imported  from  the  Ha- 
waiian Islands,  which  accompany  the  report  of  the  commissi9ners, 
establish  the  fact  which  they  state,  that — 

It  does  not  appear  that  there  is  any  substantial  difference  in  the  character  of  the 
sugars  imported  prior  to  and  since  the  treaty,  nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  the  im- 
portations under  the  treaty  were  not  such  sugars  MS  were  "commonly  imported  and 
known  as  Sandwich  Island  sugars  "  prior  to  1876. 

It  is  gratifying  to  find  that  our  commissioners,  after  the  most  care- 
ful examination  of  the  grounds  of  these  complaints,  both  in  our  own 
custom-houses  and  in  the  islands,  have  been  constrained  to  bear 
testimony  to  the  honorable  conduct  of  the  Hawaiian  government 
in  the  execution  of  the  treaty  of  1875. 

The  King  of  Hawaii  has  been  earnest  and  faithful  in  his  efforts 
to  remove  all  embarrassments  that  have  stood  in  the  wray  of  his 
treaty  engagements  writh  the  United  States.  The  remission  of  15 
per  cent,  of  the  duties  fixed  by  the  general  tariff  laws  of  Hawaii,  to 
satisfy  Great  Britain,  was  a  severe  draft  on  the  revenues  of  the  king- 
dom. By  this  and  other  means  our  special  treaty  relations  with 
Hawaii  have  been  recognized  as  being  rightful  and  satisfactory  to 
other  countries. 

This  kingdom,  without  any  decided  support  from  the  United  States, 
has  vindicated  the  principles  of  the  treaty  of  1875  in  the  following 


article  in  her  treaty  with  the  German   Empire  of  19th  September, 
1879: 

SEPARATE    ARTICLE. 

Certain  relations  of  proximity  and  other  considerations  having  rendered  it  impor- 
tant to  the  Hawaiian  government  to  enter  into  mutual  agreements  with  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  of  America,  by  a  convention  concluded  at  Washington  the 
80th  day  of  January,  1875,  the  two  high  contracting  parties  have  agreed:  that  the 
special  advantages  granted  by  said  convention  to  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
consideration  of  equivalent  advantages,  shall  not  in  any  case  be  invoked  in  favor  of 
the  relations  .-auctioned  between  the  two  high  contracting  parties  by  the  present 
treaty. 

More  recently  the  Hawaiian  government  has  made  a  treat}7  witli 
Portugal  containing  a  like  declaration. 

It  sufficiently  appears  from  the  facts  thus  briefly  presented  in  out- 
line that  to  abrogate  our  treaty  of  1875  the  Hawaiian  government 
would  release  these  engagements  with  the  other  powers,  and  we  would 
abandon  the  concessions  of  principles  so  favorable  to  us  in  respect 
of  our  peculiar  political  and  commercial  relations  with  the  kingdom 
of  Hawaii,  which  are  now  firmly  established.  We  would  thereby 
open  the  door  to  similar  agreements  between  those  countries  and 
Hawaii,  under  which  they  would  eagerly  seize  the  advantages  which 
we  would  throw  away. 

If  we  abandon  the  treaty  we  must  also  abandon  the  attitude  we 
assumed  when  it  was  ratified,  that  our  national  interests  are  so 
identified  with  those  of  Hawaii  that  we  cannot  permit  any  other 
nation  to  gain  such  control  in  that  country  as  will  endanger  our 
western  coast,  or  seriously  impede  our  commerce  on  the  Pacific 
Ocean. 

Australia  is  anxious  to  gain  the  trade  we  enjoy  with  Hawaii,  and 
is  but  little  further  from  those  islands  than  we  are.  That  continent 
of  great  islands  needs  the  productions  of  Hawaii  as  much  as  we  need 
them,  and  has  many  of  the  productions  that  we  send  to  Hawaii. 

The  completion  of  the  Canadian  Pacific  railroad  from  Lake  Su- 
perior to  Puget  Sound  would  induce  the  Dominion  of  Canada  to 
make  most  favorable  terms  with  the  Hawaiian  government  for  the 
trade  of  those  islands. 

A  canal  through  the  Isthmus  of  Darien  would  cause  the  Hawaiian 
trade  to  seek  better  markets  in  Europe  than  we  can  offer  for  the  pur- 
chase of  the  goods  she  needs;  so  that  every  new  route  of  transpor- 
tation leading  to  Europe  will  put  in  jeopardy  our  trade  with  the 
Hawaiian  Islands,  unless  we  continue  and  make  permanent  our  ex- 
isting treaty  agreement. 

Whatever  objections  have  so  far  been  found  to  the  workings  or 
the  results  of  this  treaty  are  greatly  overbalanced  by  the  advantages 
we  have  acquired  in  a  national  sense,  and  by  the  benefits  to  our 
people  of  a  profitable  trade  with  the  Hawaiian  people,  and  by  the 
duty  we  owe  the  people  of  both  countries  to  give  certainty  and  per- 
manence to  the  gratifying  prosperity  which  this  treaty  has  created. 


APPENDIX  A. 


No.  '.i2.J 


LEGATION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

HONOLULU,  October  13,  1883. 


SIR  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herewith,  from  the  Saturday  Press  of  this  date,  a 
statement  of  the  principal  sugar  plantations  on  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  embracing  their 
estimated  value  and  the  nationalities  of  their  proprietors.  It  will  he  observed  that 
of  the  sixty-nine  plantations  named  forty-eight  are  credited  mainly  to  American  own- 
nership,  with  a  valuation  of  $10,235,464,  out  of  an  aggregate  valuation  of  $15,886,800. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

ROLLIN  M.  DAGGETT. 
Hon.  FRED'K  T.  FRELINGHUYSEN, 

Secretary  of  State.. 

[Inclosure  in  No.  92.— From  the  Saturday  Press,  October  13,  1883.] 
Statement  of  Sugar  Plantations  on  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  1883. 


Name  of  plantation. 

Value. 

American. 

British. 

German. 

Hawai- 
ian. 

Chinese. 

Hawaiian  Agricultural  Company  
Planting  interests 

$Goo.ooo 

150,000 
10(1,1)00 
50,000 
240,000 
170,000 
200,000 
175,000 
360,000 
100,800 
600,000 
:$oo,ooo 
250,000 
000,000 
120,000 
300,000 
40,000 
300,000 
150,000 

$565,000 
50,000 
98,000 
30,000 
240,000 
170,000 
110,100 
175,000 
324,750 
62,300 
500,000 
151,000 
250,000 
428,514 
120000 
67,500 
40,000 
279,000 

$35,000 

$100,000 
400,000 

Halawa  Sugar  Company  

2,000 
20,000 

$89,900 

3,750 

27,300 

171,486 
232,560 

$27,000 
7,000 

21,000 

123,140 

51,000 

Onomea  Sugar  Company  
Paukaa  Sugar  Company 

Honomu  Sugar  Company  

"'"iisoo" 

4,200 
149,000 

Wailuku  Sugar  Company  
East  Maui  Plantation  
Makee  Sugar  Company  
Kilauea  Sugar  Company 

Kealia  Plantation  
Lihue  Plantation 

Planting  interests  
Koloa  Sugar  Company 



Planting  interests  
Prinoeville  Plantation 

Eleele  Plantation  

75,000 

75,000 
20,000 
93,750 

50,000 

12,360 
60,000 

Planting  interests  
Kekaha  Plantation  
Planting  interests  
Waialua  Plantation  
Waimaualo  Sugar  Company  
Olowalu  Sugar  Company  

20,000 
150,008 
50,000 
160,000 
216,000 
100,000 
•200,000 

500,000 

400,000 
250,000 
100,000 
125,000 
100,000 
250,000 
500,000 

500,000 
250,000 
200,000 
250,000 
100,000 
2,000,000 
250,000 
30C,000 
200,000 
300,000 
500,000 
200,000 
50,000 
150,000 
150,000 
120,000 
80,000 
200,000 
200,000 

56,250 

150,000 
6,000 
49,000 

74,500 

Hitchcock  Brothers  &  Co 

200,000 
500,000 

Haiku  Sugar  Company  
Pepeekeo  Plantation              

Alexander  &  Baldwin  
Planting  interests     

250,000 
100,000 

'""r^ooo" 

50,000 
449,000 

500,000 

125,600 
33,000 
175,000 
51,000 

*250,00() 
12,000 

24,000 
125,000 

Kipahulu  Plantation  

Planting  interests  
Ookala  Sugar  Company  

Kohala  Sugar  Company...  
Pioneer  Mill  Company  and  plant- 
ing interests  

Grove  Ranch       

183,250 
250,000 
100,000 
2,000,000 
125,000 
300,000 
150,000 
240,000 
375,000 
26,000 
50,000 

4,250 

Waihee  Sugar  Company 

Makee  Plantation  
Hawaiian  Commercial  Company  
Waikapu  Plantation  
Hakalau  Plantation 

50,000 
60,000 
125,000 
94,000 

150,000 
150,000 
120,000 
80,000 
200,000 
100,000 

80,000 

Star  Mill  

Hilea  Sugar  Company 

Honokaa  Sugar  Company  

Hawi  Mill       .   . 

Planting  interests 

Union  Mill  

Planting  interests 

Spencer's  Plantation  
Paauhau  Mill  Company 

100,000 

'250,000,  Danish. 


:\\ 


nf  Siff/xr  plantations^  <\<". — Continued. 


Name  of  plantation. 


Value.        American,  j  British.    German.     Hfa"1al"       Chinese. 


$100  000 

$100000 

Wainaku  Plantation        

75,000 

$37,500 

$37,500 

101)  (Kill 

39,000 

25,000 

$28,000            8,000 

W   Lidgate  &  Co 

400,000 

400,000 

ICiO  OIK) 

. 

160,000 

250  000 

250,000 

Niulii  Mill 

80,000 

80,000 

."JO  000 

20000 

;JO,000 

60  000 

$60  000 

Kamaloo  Plantation  

50,000 

50,000 

Meyer's  Plantation 

10,000 

10,000 

Waianae  Sugar  Company  

170,000 

96,800 

,1,000 

:),500         t'>4,7oo  i 

Laie  Plantation 

75,000 

75,000 

Heeia  Sugar  Company  
Reciprocity  Sugar  Company 

200,000 
80,000 

100,000 
10000 

100,000 
10,000 

C>0  000 

Huelo  Plantation  Mill  and  plant- 
ing interests 

150,000 

100,000 

50,000 

Estimated  value  sugar  interests  in  ; 
the  kingdom  . 

15,880,800 

10,235,464 

3,180,050 

970,046        641,240  \ 

560,000 

October,  18*:;. 


APPENDIX  G. 

Political  Value  of  the  Hawaiian  Treaty. 

The  peculiar  interest  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  dates  back  to  1820,  when  the  first  band  of  Ameri- 
can missionaries  went  out  to  that  then  benighted  country. 

Through  the  unaided  efforts  of  American  missionaries  the  Gov- 
ernment was  brought  up  to  a  standard  never  reached  by  any  other 
savage  race,  and  by  their  advice  and  influence  the  rulers  were  re- 
strained and  guided  in  the  right  way  until  it  became  a  constitutional 
monarchy  in  the  family  of  nations.  In  the  interim  of  passing  from 
ignorance  and  idolatry  to  knowledge  and  Christianity,  the  islands 
were  more  than  once  threatened  with  and  barely  saved  from  the  fate 
of  so  many  of  the  Pacific  groups.  Both  England  and  France  viewed 
them  with  longing  and  jealous  eye,  and  officials  and  subjects  of  both 
those  countries  tried  to  force  the  native  King  into  committing  some 
act  which  might  be  made  an  excuse  for  seizing  the  sovereignty.  It 
was  due  to  the  vigilance  an d»un tiring  energy  of  the  men  who  com- 
posed that  little  band  of  American  laborers  in  the  cause  of  religion 
and  civilization  that  the  schemes  and  intrigues  of  these  designing- 
foreigners  were  baffled  and  brought  to  naught. 

When,  in  1839,  the  French  required  of  the  King  a  deposit  of 
S20,000  as  security  for  certain  claims  made  by  them,  it  was  the 
American  merchants  who  furnished  the  money,  and  thus  prevented 
the  seizure  of  the  islands.  And  when,  in  1843,  Lord  George  Paulet, 
in  command  of  Her  British  Majesty's  frigate  Carysfort,  demanded  a 
"  voluntary"  cession  of  the  islands  at  his  cannon's  mouth,  it  was  the 
sage  advice  and  admirable  diplomacy  of  Dr.  Judd,  an  American 
missionary,  which  thwarted  the  object  of  the  ambitious  Englishman 
and  saved  the  little  kingdom. 


A  glance  at  the  map  of  the  North  Pacific  Ocean  should  be  enough 
to  convince  any  one  of  the  political  and  commercial  importance  of 
these  islands  to  the  United  States.  If  they  were  situated  in  the  At- 
lantic as  they  are  in  the  Pacific,  and  the  center  of  political  and  com- 
mercial influences  equally  important  to  our  Eastern  coast,  secured 
by  a  treaty  that  had  been  acquiesced  in  by  the  great  European 
powers,  would  any  American  statesman  propose  to  abrogate  such 
treaty  and  cast  them  adrift  because  of  the  remission  of  duty  upon 
fifty  thousand  tons  of  sugar  per  annum? 

How  much  did  it  cost  this  country  and  prolong  the  civil  war  that 
Nassau  and  other  islands  in  the  Atlantic  were  under  foreign  con- 
trol? 

The  growing  importance  of  American  commerce  in  the  Pacific 
was  well  expressed  by  Mr.  Seward  in  his  speech  in  the  Senate  on 
that  subject: 

"  Who  does  not  see  that  henceforth,  every  year,  European  com- 
merce, European  politics,  European  thought,  and  European  activity, 
although  actually  gaining  greater  force,  and  European  connections, 
although  actually  becoming  more  intimate,  will  nevertheless  ulti- 
mately sink  in  importance,  while  the  Pacific  Ocean,  its  shores,  its 
islands,  and  the  vast  region  beyond  will  become  the  chief  theatre  of 
events  in  the  world's  great  hereafter." 

This  political  importance  has  been  conceded  by  the  opponents  as 
well  as  friends  of  the  treaty.  Hon.  Philip  A.  Thomas,  of  Maryland, 
in  a  speech  in  opposition  to  the  treaty,  said  : 

"Great  Britain,  they  say, will  seize  upon  these  islands  if  the  treaty 
does  not  become  the  supreme  law  of  the  land."  *  *  *  "  They 
forget  that  the  'Monroe  Doctrine'  is  still  extant  in  this  Govern- 
ment, and  that  that  doctrine  will  be  enforced  against  Great  Britain 
or  any  other  power  that  may  seize  upon  or  attempt  to  hold  these 
islands.  If  the  presence  of  any  one  of  them  there  should  prove  to 
be  a  standing  menace  to  the  vital  interests  of  the  United  States  on 
the  Pacific  coast,  or  if  possession  were  held  with  hostile  intent 
towards  our  country  or  its  people,  the  policy  of  this  Government,  in 
such  an  emergency,  was  foreshadowed  by  Mr.  Webster,  as  Secretary 
of  State,  in  the  administration  of  President  Tyler,  when,  in  reference 
to  these  very  islands,  he  wrote  that  'the  Government  of.  the  United 
States  would  look  with  displeasure  upon  any  effort  of  any  other  gov- 
ernment to  acquire  any  preponderating  influence  over  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Hawaiian  Islands.'  And,  referring  to  the  rumor  then 
current  that  the  French  would  probably  take  possession  of  the 
islands,  he  said  that  he  '  trusted  that  they  would  not  take  possession, 
but  if  they  did  they  would  be  dislodged  if  it  took  the  whole  power 
of  the  Government  to  do  it.'  Rest  assured,  Mr.  Speaker,"  said  Mr. 
Thomas,  "  that  the  same  policy  will  be  pursued  whenever  Great 
Britain  or  any  other  foreign  government,  with  intent  to  destroy  the 
peace  or  menace  the  interests  of  our  Pacific  States,  shall  undertake 
to  assert  dominion  over  the  Sandwich  Islands.  They  will  be  dis- 
lodged if  it  takes  the  whole  power  of  the  Government  to  do  it." 

Did  the  gentleman  count  the  difference  in  cost  between  holding  a 


position  gained  and  in  dislodging  another  from  such  a  position? 
The  Virginias  naval  demonstration  alone  cost  five  millions  of  dol- 
lars. What  would  it  have  cost  to  dislodge  Spain  from  Cuba? 

The  treaty  was  earnestly  recommended  by  many  of  the  officials 
of  the  United  States  who  had  represented  their  country  at  the  islands, 
and  by  General  Schofield,  of  the  army,  who  had  visited  the  islands, 
and  made  a  careful  examination  of  their  position  and  condition,  as 
will  be  seen  by  his  letter,  which  is  incorporated  in  the  speech  of  Mr. 
Wood,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means.  He  writes 
to  the  Hon.  Mr.  Luttrell,  a  member  of  the  House,  as  follows: 

'          "HK.MHjrAKTKKS   MILITARY  DIVISION  OF  THE  PACIFIC,     ' 

"SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL.,  December  30,  1875. 

"DEAR  SIR:  Knowing  your  interest  in  the' subject,  I  venture  to  give  you  my  views 
in  respect  to  the  Hawaiian  treaty,  which  is  soon  to  come  Before  Congress  for  legislative 
action. 

••The  Hawaiian  Islands  constitute  the  only  natural  outpost  to  the  defenses  of  the\ 
Pacific  coast. 

"In  the  possession  of  a  foreign  naval  power,  in  time  of  war,  as  a  depot  from  which! 
to  fit  out  hostile  expeditions  against  this  coast  and  our  commerce  on  the  Pacific  Ocean,  j 
they  would  afford  the  means  of  incalculable  injury  to  the  United  States. 

"  If  the  absolute  neutrality  of  the  islands  could  always  be  insured,  that  would  suffice  ; 
but  they  have  not,  and  never  can  have  the  power  to  maintain  their  own  neutrality, 
and  now  their  necessities  force  them  to  seek  alliance  with  some  nation  which  can  relieve 
their  embarrassment. 

"The  British  Empire,  through  its  North  Pacific  and  South  Sea  colonies,  stands  ready, 
to  enter  into  such  an  alliance,  and  thus  complete  its  chain  of  naval  stations  from  Aus-| 
tralia  to  British  Colombia.  We  cannot  refuse  the  islands  the  little  aid  they  need,  and 
at  the  same  time  deny  their  right  to  seek  it  elsewhere.  The  time  has  come  when  we 
must  secure  forever  the  desired  control  over  those  islands,  or  let  it  pass  into  other  hands.  ^ 

"The  financial  interest  to  the  United  States  involved  in  this  treaty  is  very  small, 
and  if  it  were  much  greater  it  would  still  be  insignificant  when  compared  to  the  im-1 
portance  of  such  a  military  and  naval  station  to  the  national  security  and  welfare. 
"  I  am,  dear  sir,  yours,  very  truly. 

."J.  M.  SCHOFIELD. 
••HON.  J.  K.  LUTTRELL,  M.  C., 

"Was/ihiytrm.   I).  C. 

"  Admiral  Porter  addresses  a  letter  to  the  Hon.  Mr.  Wood,  which 
is  incorporated  in  his  speech  in  support  of  the  treaty,  in  which  he 
fully  sustains  the  views  of  General  Schofield.  The  naval  officers 
who  have  visited  the  islands  have  been  in  accord  on  the  subject  of 
intimate  commercial  relations  with  the  islands,  always  bearing  in 
view  their  future  destiny. 

"  The  London  Times  thus  refers  to  a  harbor  at  the  islands  : 

"  The  maritime  power  which  holds  Pearl  River  Harbor,  and  moors  her  fleet  there] 
holds  the  key  of  the  North  Pacific. 

"  Sir  George  Simpson,  in  his  travels  around  the  world,  says : 

"  That  this  archipelago  is  far  more  valuable  on  this  account  that  it  neither  is  nor  can 
ever  be  shared  by  a  rival. 

'•'These  are  the  only  islands  which  can  form  an  outpost  to  the  de- 
fenses of  the  Pacific  States.  There  are  no  others.  They  have  no 
rival ;  and  in  this  consists  their  great  value.  They  are  totally  un- 
like a  single  island  in  the  West  Indies  as  an  outpost  of  defense. 


:U 

"  The  following  is  an  extract  of  the  minority  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Ways  and  Means,  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
on  the  Hawaiian  treaty : 

"Much  stress  is  laid  bv  the  report  of  the  majority  upon  the  importance  to  the  United 
States  of  obtaining  a  foothold  upon  those  islands  in  the  interests  of  our  Pacific  com- 
merce with  the  continent  of  Asia,  and  of  our  safety  in  case  of  future  wars  with  any 
great  naval  power. 

"  The  undersigned  are  not  insensible  to  these  considerations.  No  European  power 
should  he  permitted  to  obtain  the  sovereignty  of  the  islands,  or  to  gain  such  influence 
in  them  as  to  menace  our  security.  To  allow  this  would  he  contrary  to  the  well-es- 
tablished canons  of  American  policy,  sanctioned  by  nearly  a  century  of  traditions  and 
by  the  conceded  maxims  of  international  law.  No  European  power  can  deny  to  us  the 
peculiar  right  to  exclude  them  from  possessing  what  would  he  a  standing  menace  of 
danger  t<>  its,  and  the  possession  of  which,  by  us,  would  be  no  menace  to  them. 

"  The  following  extract  from  a  recent  report  of  Commodore  R.  W. 
Shufeldt,  of  the  United  States  Navy,  on  the  commercial  importance 
of  the  Corea,  present  and  future,  in  its  relation  to  America,  will  be 
found  to  be  of  great  interest : 

"  The  acquisition  of  Alaska  and  the  Aleutian  Islands,  the  treaties  with  Japan,  Sand- 
wich Islands  and  Samoa,  are  only  corollaries  to  the  proposition  that  the  Pacific  Ocean 
is  to  become  at  no  distant  day  the  commercial  domain  of  America.  The  Atlantic, 
either  by  forceofcircumstanc.es  or  national  indifference,  has  been  given  over  to  foreign 
flags,  backed  by  the  immense  weight  of  European  capital,  but  under  natural  laws  the 
flow  of  comrnerce;  as  of  emigration,  is  from  the  east  toward  the  west,  and  the  geographical 
position  of  the  Tinted  Stales,  in  conformity  with  this  law.  points  to  the  Pacific  Ocean 
as  the  main  highway  of  trade,  and  our  country  as  the  source  from  which  the  Oriental 
nations  must  obtain  whatever  they  need  in  the  way  of  commercial  exchange.  In  all 
probability,  within  the  next  half  century,  the  Tinted  States  will  find  its  largest  market 
in  Asia  rather  than  Europe. 

"The  London  Times  of  August  25,  1882,  publishes  a  naval  letter 
from  Hong-Kong,  under  date  of  December  19,  thus: 

•'  It  having  been  reported  that  a  large  extension  of  the  Russian  naval  station  was  in 
progress  at  Vladivostock,  the  place  has  been  visited  by  Vice-Admiral  "Willes,  and 
what  he  there  saw  has  apparently  made  so  much  impression  upon  him  that  a  long  dis- 
patch has  been  transmitted  to  the  admiralty  upon  the  subject.  A  new  dock  for  repair- 
ing ships  and  a  slip  for  constructing  small"  armed  crafts'  are  in  hand.  A  factory  for 
the  manufacture  of  torpedoes  and  additional  batteries  to  strengthen  the  defense  of  tin* 
place  is  employing  several  hundreds  of  hands  in  its  construction.  The  Siberian  flotilla. 
instead  of  comprising,  as  in  the  past,  two  aged  schooners  and  three  obsolete  gun-ves- 
sels, now  consists  of  two  floating  batteries,  four  schooners,  and  five  gunboats  of  the 
newest  description.  For  the  moment  Russia  appears  to  have  abandoned  her  hostile 
intentions  upon  Corea,  but  she  seems  to  be  none  the  less  determined  to  constitute  her- 
self the  leading  naval  power  in  the  North  Pacific. 

"There  are  three  powerful  commercial  nations  that  have  large  in- 
terests in  the  North  Pacific  besides  the  United  States,  viz.,  Great 
Britain,  Russia,  and  China.  France  and  Germany  are  a  power  in 
the  South  Pacific.  Jarvis,  the  historian  of  Hawaii,  says: 

t{  That  they  hold  the  key  of  the  Pacific  Ocean,  for  no  trade  could  prosper  or  even 
exist  while  a  hostile  power,  possessing  an  active  and  powerful  marine,  should  .-end 
out  its  cruisers  to  prey  upon  commerce  ;  but  once  firmly  established  on  them  it  mi^ht 
put  at  defiance  any  means  of  attack  which  could  be  brought  to  bear  against,  them. 
Hence  the  commercial  countries  have  been  jealous  lest  some  of  them  should  have  a 
superior  influence. 


"General  Grant,  in  a  letter  from  China,  during  his  visit  around 
the  world,  wrote: 

"  My  belief  is  that  in  less  time  from  uo\v  than  half  a  century  Europe,  will  he  com- 
plaining of  the  rapid  advance  of  China. 

-:;-  -::-  #  -::-  -::-  *  -:;- 

••  President  Lincoln,  in  reply  to  an  accredited  minister  from 
Hawaii,  said : 

••  In  every  light  in  which  the  State  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  can  he  contemplated,  I 
it  is  an  object  of  profound  interest  for  the  United  States.  Virtually  it  was  once  a  \ 
colony  ;  it  is  now  a  near  and  intimate  neighbor.  It  is  a  haven  of  shelter  and  refresh-  \ 
ment  for  our  merchants,  fishermen,  seamen,  and  other  citizens,  when  on  their  lawful  j 
occasions  they  are  navigating  the  Eastern  seas  and  oceans.  The  people  are  free,  and 
its  laws,  language,  and  religion  are  largely  the  fruits  of  our  own  teachings  and  ex-  ! 
am  pies. 

But  it  may  be  argued  that  in  face  of  the  protest  of  the  United 
States  no  nation  would  take  possession  or  strive  to  acquire  superior 
rights  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands. 

Suppose  the  commercial  supremacy  which  Australia  was  rapidly 
gaining  in  1872-'3  had  been  permitted  to  go  on  unchecked  by  the 
treaty  negotiated  in  1874,  and  the  islands  had  become  as  thoroughly 
Anglicized,  as  they  are  now  Americanized,  with  what  grace  could 
the  United  States  have  objected  to  British  influence  and  control? 
Great  Britain  always  contended  that  she  did  not  desire  to  annex  the 
Fiji  Islands,  but  was  compelled  to  do  so  to  protect  British  commercial 
interests  that  had  grown  up  spontaneously.  And  with  how  much  less 
grace  could  the  United  States  protest  if  they  deliberately  abrogate  a 
treaty  which  has  given  form  and  shape  to  the  policy  insisted  upon 
by  American  statesmen  for  forty  years!  Such  an  abrogation  would 
be  a  virtual  acknowledgment  that  the  policy  was  deliberately  aban- 
doned, after  which  it  would  not  lie  in  the  mouth  of  the  United  States 
to  protest  against  any  other  nation  taking  up  what  she  had  by  a  solemn 
act  abandoned.  Such  a  retreat  from  the  position  now  gained,  espe- 
cially in  view  of  the  completion  of  an  isthmian  canal,  would  be  para- 
mount to  an  abandonment  of  any  hopes  of  commercial  supremacy 
in  the  Pacific. 

If  statesmen  of  the  past  had  the  prescience  to  foresee  and  claim  for 
the  United  States  the  advantages  lying  in  the  control  of  this  group 
of  islands,  with  how  much  more  emphasis  should  such  control  be 
claimed  by  statesmen  in  this  day  when  a  canalis  being  made  by 
foreign  capital  which  will  debouche  in  the  face  of  this  group  on  which 
the  commerce  of  the  East,  which  seeks  the  canal,  must  rely  for  a 
port  of  supplies  and  repair  ! 

No  new  treaty  which  now  could  be  negotiated  would  be  likely  to 
receive  the  sanctions  the  present  treaty  has  gained,  and  become  a 
part  of  the  international  law  regarding  Hawaii. 

Says  the  Oakland,  California,  Times,  December  18,  1883: 

"  On  our  Atlantic  coast  all  of  the  near  lying  islands  are  controlled 
by  other  governments.  England  dominates  Jamaica  and  the  Baha- 
mas, Spain  possesses  Cuba,  and  Denmark  St.  Thomas,  while  Hayti 


36 

is  semi-barbarous.  But  on  that  coast  our  own  Government  is  strong 
enough  in  equipment,  fortification,  and  resources  to  be  more  indiffer- 
ent to  such  environment  than  it  can  afford  to  be  here.  Driven  out 
of  friendly  relations,  which  thrive  on  reciprocal  trade  with  Hawaii, 
our  coast  line  will  be  naked  to  the  ocean  and  defenceless,  with  not 

a  friendly  port  in  the  sea  where  an   American  ship  can  cast  anchor. 
#"*  #  *  #  *  * 

"  The  abrogation  of  the  Hawaii  treaty  means  the  greatest  contri- 
bution in  our  power  to  offer  to  England's  monopoly  of  the  traffic, 
the  industry,  the  profits  of  the  whole  globe.  We  have  stood  guard 
over  those  islands  while  they  underwent  the  pangs  of  transforma- 
ion  from  barbarism -to  civilization.  Commerce,  under  our  protec- 
tion, has  transfigured  them,  and  now  they  are  in  the  last  stage  of 
development  in  which  they  approximate  our  features  and  take  on 
the  form  of  absolute  assimilation,  and  we  are  asked  to  abandon  them 
and  drop  the  profitable  and  ripened  results  of  a  third  of  a  century's 
care  and  culture  into  the  waiting  lap  of  England! 

"  The  completion  of  the  Canada  Pacific  railroad  sharpens  Eng- 
land's anxiety  to  supplant  us  in  Hawaii.  She  covets  the  island  trade 
for  that  Sound  port  which  is  to  be  the  terminus  of  her  Pacific  road. 
She  seeks  near  our  shores  a  naval  station  where  her  war  ships  may 
shelter  and  her  merchant  marine  find  profit  and  protection. 

"  We  have  by  wrong  commercial  policies  abandoned  the  rest  of 
the  world  to  England.  We  have  given  over  to  her  the  seas  where 
once  we  disputed  her  supremacy.  Coast  after  coast  and  island  after 
island  has  been  nailed  to  her  empire  until  she  has  coiled  herself 
around  the  world  like  a  serpent." 

It  may  be  asked,  "  How  does  this  treaty  secure  to  the  United 
States  these  advantages  ?"  The  interpretation  of  treaties  always 
involves  something  more  than  the  meaning  of  particular  and  iso- 
lated articles  and  clauses.  No  statesman  or  diplomat  can  read  this 
treaty  without  recognizing  at  once  the  force  and  effect,  the  scope 
and  intent,  of  the  treaty  as  a  whole.  It  was  more  than  a  mere 
commercial  treaty.  It  truly  puts  the  commerce  of  the  two  countries 
on  a  satisfactory  basis  without  embarrassing  the  revenue  of  Hawaii 
to  too  great  an  extent,  and  is  and  will  be  so  long  as  the  high  tariff 
on  sugar  is  retained  somewhat  favorable  to  Hawaii.  If  it  were  not 
so  there  would  be  no  excuse  for  the  fourth  article,  which  applies 
only  to  Hawaii,  restraining  her  from  admitting  free  of  duty  the 
goods  of  other  countries,  or  permitting  any  other  country  to  get  any 
territory  or  right  to  use  territory  therein.  It  is  this  fact  that  Hawaii 
had  a  temporary  advantage  in  the  other  articles  of  the  treaty  that 
gives  the  fourth  article  its  great  force.  This  article  was  not  carelessly 
worded  by  the  prudent  and  sagacious  American  statesman  who 
framed  it.  It  was  not  intended  to  be  offensive  to  the  Hawaiian 
king.  Its  effects  were  carefully  calculated. .  It  was  based  upon  the 
idea  of  interfering  as  little  as  possible  with  Hawaiian  independ- 
ence so  long  as  that  could  be  maintained,  but  providing  for  the 
direction  in  which  the  control  of  the  islands  should  go  when  it  was 
no  longer  possible  to  maintain  it. 


37 

No  greater  testimony  to  the  importance  of  the%  treaty  could  be 
given  than  that  it  was  at  once  recognized  by  the  quick  appreciation 
of  British,  French,  and  German  statesmen,  who  made  strenuous  pro- 
tests against  it,  Great  Britain  going  so  far  as  to  say  to  the  Hawaiian 
government  that  they  "could  not  allow"  its  provisions  to  come 
into  force.  The  Hawaiian  government  was  involved  in  a  long  and 
tedious  diplomatic  negotiation,  extending  over  four  years,  with,  how- 
ever, very  favorable  results,  Great  Britain  agreeing  to  the  termina- 
tion of  one  article  of  her  treaty  which  was  thought  to  be  infringed, 
and  Germany  agreeing  that  so  long  as  this  treaty  lasted  she  would 
not  claim  the  same  rights  and  privileges.  It  follows,  therefore,  that 
so  long  as  this  treaty  lasts  the  superior  rights  of  the  United  States 
have  and  enjoy  the  formal  recognition  of  the  powers — abrogate  it  and 
the  powers  would  doubtless  claim  equal  rights  again.  How  far 
these  governments  were  influenced  in  yielding  to  the  diplomatic  rep- 
resentations of  Hawaiian  statesmen  by  the  hope  that  Congress  would 
abrogate  the  treaty  cannot  be  told ;  but  that  they  would  regard  its 
abrogation  as  a  great  gain  to  them  there  is  no  doubt. 

In  the  volume  of  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  of  1878, 
will  be  found  an  account  of  the  difficulties  met  by  the  Hawaiian 
government.  There  is  no  doubt,  however,  of  the  scope  and  intent 
of  the  treaty  in  the  minds  of  practiced  diplomats. 

Aside  from  this  diplomatic  view  the  treaty  undoubtedly  does  foster 
the  silent  but  potent  forces  which  mould  a  nation  arid  fix  its  destiny, 
as  it  was  anticipated  it  would  do.  Read  in  the  light  of  to-day  the 
following  remarks  of  Hon.  Elijah  Ward,  of  New  York,  in  the  Forty- 
fourth  Congress,  on  the  subject  of  the  treaty,  show  a  wise  and  far- 
seeing  statesmanship  as  to  how  the  treaty  was  to  secure  the  advan- 
tages aimed  at : 

"  Mr.  Speaker  :  I  have  observed  with  much  pleasure  that  the  con- 
vention for  the  extension  of  the  trade  of  the  United  States  with  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  was  advised  in  the  Senate  b}T  the  triumphant  ma- 
jority of  51  against  12  votes,  and  has  been  sent  to  this  House  for  its 
approval  and  appropriate  legislation.  It  has  become  incumbent  on 
Congress  to  do  whatever  is  fairly  in  its  power  to  open  or  extend 
markets  abroad.  This  is  one  of  the  direct  results  which  will  be  ac- 
complished by  the  proposed  treaty,  and  hence  it  should  be  sup- 
ported by  the  representatives  of  the  people  without  distinction  of 

party. 

******** 

"  The  purchase  of  a  preponderating  interest  in  the  Suez  canal  has 
justly  been  regarded  as  a  masterpiece  of  statesmanship  and  far-see- 
ing policy  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain.  Its  object  is  to  maintain 
for  that  country  its  supremacy  in  oriental  trade.  I  regard  the  treaty 
with  the  Hawaiian  Islands  as  scarcely  less  important  to  our  people 
than  the  control  of  the  Suez  canal  is  to  British  subjects.  China  and 
Japan  are  among  the  chief  fields  for  our  commercial  and  manufac- 
turing enterprise,  and  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  we  should 
possess  adequate  naval  stations  in  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

"  For  these  reasons  I  regard  the  Hawaiian   Islands,  although  no 


38 

part  of  tliis  continent,  yet  as  commercially,  politically,  and  in  fact 
as  part  of  its  appurtenances,  and  to  be  properly  included  in  the  ap- 
plication of  the  Monroe  doctrine,  prohibiting*  the  intervention  of 
European  powers  in  them.  Of  this  it  was  well  said  by  President 
Johnson  in  his  ruessage  of  December  5,  1865,  that  it  has  as  law  been 
'  sanctioned  by  time,  and  by  its  good  results  has  approved  itself  to 
both  continents.' 

"  It  appears  to  me  that  however  just  and  proper  and  gratifying  to 
an  honorable  national  pride  the  Monroe  doctrine  in  itself  may  be, 
it  is  imperfect  and  little  more  than  a  barren  ideality,  unless,  in  an 
enlightened  self-interest,  we  associate  it  with  a  friendly  care  for  the 
commercial  and  material  prosperity  of  the  States  we  have  so  far 
taken  under  our  protection.  If  we  prohibit  the  interference  of  Eu- 
ropean nations  with  the  States  of  this  continent,  shall  we  stop  at 
that  point  and  cultivate  no  further  increase  of  friendly  relations 
with  them  ?  " 

The  activity  of  the  partisans  of  British  influence  in  the  Hawaiian 
Islands  to  endeavor  to  induce  the  Hawaiian  government  to  with- 
draw from  its  present  engagements  and  accept  the  boon  of  cheap 
East  India  coolie  labor  (now  denied  them),  under  British  protection, 
in  place  of  the  free  market  of  America,  shows  that  they  still  enter- 
tain hopes  of  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty,  the  importance  of  which 
British  diplomats  do  not  fail  to  see.  Apropos  of  this  the  American 
minister,  General  Comly,  reported  in  1881,  under  date  August  29, 
to  the  United  States  Government: 

"  I  have  had  occasion  formerly  to  report  to  the  Secretary  of  State 
the  discomfort  felt  by  the  British  Commissioner  and  other  residents 
here  on  account  of  the  predominance  of  United  States  influence  and 
interests  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands. 

"  The  watchfulness  of  the  Commissioner  to  find  means  of  under- 
mining this  influence  has  been  constant. 

"  There  has  been  a  systematic  and  indomitable  struggle  to  force 
the  Hawaiian  government  into  a  convention  for  the  importation  of 
East  India  coolies,  so  as  to  give  the  English  a  separate  judicature 
and  furnish  innumerable  opportunities  for  meddlesome  interference 
with  the  internal  affairs  of  this  Government." 

This  warning  called  forth  from  Secretary  Blaine  two  dispatches, 
which  laid  down  the  position  of  the  United  States  Government  as 
follows : 

In  Dispatch  of  November  19,  1881. 
*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

"  But  if  negotiations  such  as  you  describe  are  really  in  progress, 
you  will  ask  for  an  interview  with  the  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs 
and  make  the  following  representation  of  the  views  of  the  United 
States  : 

"  The  Government  of  the  United  States  has,  with  unvarying  con- 
sistency, manifested  respect  for  the  Hawaiian  Kingdom  and  an 
earnest  desire  for  the  welfare  of  its  people."  *  *  * 


30 

"  The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  always  avowed,  and 
now  repeats,  that  under  no  circumstances  will  it  permit  the  transfer 
of  the  territory  or  sovereignty  of  these  islands  to  any  of  the  great 
European  powers.  It  is  needless  to  restate  the  reasons  upon  which 
that  determination  rests.  It  is  too  obvious  for  argument  that  the 
possession  of  these  islands  by  a  great  maritime  power  would  not  only 
be  a  dangerous  diminution  of  the  just  and  necessary  influence  of 
the  United  States  in  the  waters  of  the  Pacific,  but,  in  case  of  inter- 
national difficulty,  it  would  be  a  positive  threat  to  interests  too  large 
and  important  to  be  lightly  risked." 

Again,  more  fully,  under  date  of  December  1, 1882: 

"  SIR  :  My  late  instructions,  and  especially  that  of  the  19th  ult., 
will  have  shown  you  the  deep  interest  with  which  the  United  States 
observes  the  course  of  events  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands.  The  ap- 
parent disposition  to  extend  other  influence  therein  on  lines  parallel 
to  or  offsetting  our  own  must  be  watched  with  care  and  considerable 
firmness.  The  intelligent  and  suggestive  character  of  your  recent 
dispatches  naturally  leads  me  to  a  review  of  the  relationship  of  the 
Hawaiian  Kingdom  to  the  United  States  at  a  somewhat  greater 
length  than  was  practicable  in  the  limited  scope  of  my  instruction 
of  November  19th.  That  dispatch  was  necessarily  confined  to  the 
consideration  of  the  immediate  question  of  possible  treaty  engage- 
ments with  Great  Britain  which  would  give  to  that  power  in  Hawaii 
a  degree  of  extra  territory  of  jurisdiction  inconsistent  with  the  rela- 
tions of  the  islands  to  other  powers,  and  especially  to  the  United 
States.  With  the  abandonment  of  a  feudal  government  by  King 
Kamehameha  III  in  1839,  and  the  inauguration  of  constitutional 
methods,  the  history  of  the  political  relations  of  Hawaii  to  the  world 
at  large  may  very  properly  be  said  to  begin.  The  recognition  of 
independent  sovereignty  by  the  great  powers  took  place  soon  after, 
which  act  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  dated  from  1844.  Even 
at  that  early  day,  before  the  United  States  had  become  a  power  on 
the  Pacific  coast,  the  commercial  activity  of  our  people  was  mani- 
fested in  their  intercourse  with  the  Islands  of  Oceanica,  of  which  the 
Hawaiian  group  is  the  northern  extremity.  In  1848  the  treaty  of 
Gaudalupe  Hidalgo  confirmed  the  territorial  extension  of  the  United 
States  to  the  Pacific,  and  gave  to  the  Union  a  coast  line  on  that 
ocean  little  inferior  in  extent  and  superior  in  natural  wealth  to  the 
Atlantic  seaboard  of  the  original  thirteen  States.  In  1848-49  the 
discoveries  of  gold  in  California  laid  the  foundation  of  the  marvelous 
development  of  the  western  coast,  and  that  same  year  the  necessi- 
ties of  our  altered  relationship  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  found  expression 
in  a  compromise  treaty  of  friendship,  commerce,  and  navigation  with 
the  sovereign  King  of  Hawaii. 

"Hawaiian  interests  must  inevitably  turn  toward  the  United  States 
in  the  future  as  the  present  as  the  natural  and  sole  ally  in  conserv- 
ing the  dominion  of  both  in  the  Pacific  trade.  This  Government 
has  on  previous  occasions  been  brought  face  to  face  with  the  ques- 
tion of  a  protectorate  over  the  Hawaiian  group.  It  has,  as  often  as 


40 

it  arose,  been  set  aside  in  the  interest  of  such  commercial  union  and 
such  reciprocity  benefits  as  would  give  Hawaii  the  highest  advan- 
tages, and  at  the  same  time  strengthen  its  independent  existence  as 
a  sovereign  State.  In  this  I  have  summed  up  the  whole  disposition 
of  the  United  States  toward  Hawaii  in  its  proper  condition.  The 
policy  of  this  country  with  regard  to  the  Pacific  is  the  natural  com- 
plement of  its  Atlantic  policy.  The  history  of  our  European  rela- 
tions for  fifty  years  shows  the  zealous  concern  with  which  the  United 
States  has  guarded  its  control  of  the  coast  from  foreign  interference, 
and  this  without  the  extension  of  territorial  possessions  beyond  the 
mainland.  It  has  always  been  its  aim  to  preserve  the  friendly  neu- 
trality of  the  adjacent  States  and  insular  possessions. 

"  The  United  States  was  one  of  the  first  among  the  great  nations 
of  the  world  to  take  active  interest  in  upbuilding  Hawaiian  inde- 
pendence and  the  creation  of  political  life  for  its  people.  It  has  con- 
sistently endeavored,  and  with  success,  to  enlarge  the  material  pros- 
perity of  Hawaii.  On  such  an  independent  basis  it  proposes  to  be 
equally  unremitting  in  its  efforts  hereafter  to  maintain  and  develop 
the  advantages  which  accrued  to  Hawaii,  and  draw  closer  the  ties 
which  imperatively  unite  her  to  the  great  body  of  the  American 
commonwealth.  In  this  line  of  action  the  United  States  does  its 
simple  duty  both  to  Hawaii  and  itself,  and  it  cannot  permit  such 
obvious  neglect  of  national  interest  as  would  be  involved  by  silent 
acquiescence  in  any  movement  looking  to  a  lessening  of  those  ameni- 
ties, and  the  substitution  of  alien  and  hostile  interests.  It  firmly 
believes  the  position  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  as  a  key  to  the  do- 
minion of  the  American  Pacific,  demands  neutrality,  to  which  end 
it  will  earnestly  co-operate  with  the  native  government;  and  if, 
through  any  cause,  the  maintenance  of  such  position,  neutrality, 
should  be  found  b}^  Hawaii  impracticable,  this  Government  would 
then  unhesitatingly  meet  the  altered  situation  by  seeking  avowedly 
an  American  solution  of  the  grave  issues  presented." 

This  latter  exposition  of  the  attitude  of  the  United  States  towards 
Hawaii  corresponds  with  the  earlier  announcement  by  Daniel  Web- 
ster, quoted  in  the  statement  by  Hon.  E.  H.  Allen,  and  with  the 
following  extracts  from  the  messages  of  Presidents  Fillmore  and 
Johnson  : 

Extract  from  President  Fillmore's  Message  of  December  2,  1851. 

*  *  :'f  *  *  *  # 

"  It  is  earnestly  to  be  hoped  that  the  differences  which  have  for 
some  time  past  been  pending  between  the  government  of  the  French 
Republic  and  that  of  the  Sandwich  Islands  may  be  peaceably  and 
durably  adjusted,  so  as  to  secure  the  independence  of  these  islands. 

"  Long  before  the  events  which  have  of  late  imparted  so  much 
importance  to  the  possessions  of  the  United  States  on  the  Pacific 
we  acknowledged  the  independence  of  the  Hawaiian  government. 

"  This  Government  was  first  in  taking  that  step,  and  several  of 
the  leading  powers  of  Europe  immediately  followed.  We  were  in- 
fluenced in  this  measure  by  the  existing  and  prospective  importance 


41 

of  the  islands  as  a  place  of  refuge  and  refreshment  for  our  vessels 
engaged  in  the  whale  fishery,  and  by  the  consideration  that  they  He 
in  the  course  of  the  great  trade  which  must  at  no  distant  day  be 
carried  on  between  the  western  coast  of  North  America  and  Eastern 

Asia."     *     *     * 

Extract  from  President  Johnson's  Message  of  December  9,  1868. 

*  #  *  *  #  #  # 

"The  attention  of  the  Senate  and  of  Congress  is  again  respectfully 
invited  to  the  treaty  for  the  establishment  of  commercial  reciprocity 
with  the  Hawaiian  Kingdom,  entered  into  last  year,  and  already 
ratified  by  that  government." 

#  *  *  *  *  *  * 

"•It  is  known  and  felt  by  the  Hawaiian  government  and  people 
that  their  government  and  institutions  are  feeble  and  precarious; 
that  the  United  States,  being  so  near  a  neighbor,  would  be  unwill- 
ing to  see  the  islands  pass  under  foreign  control. 

'  Their  prosperity  is  continually  disturbed  by  expectations  and 
alarms  of  unfriendly  political  proceedings,  as  well  from  the  United 
States  as  from  other  foreign  powers. 

"A  reciprocit}^  treaty,  while  it  could  not  materially  diminish  the 
revenues  of  the  United  States,  would  be  a  guaranty  of  the  good  will 
and  forbearance  of  all  nations,  until  the  people  of  the  islands  shall 
of  themselves,  at  no  distant  day,  voluntarily  apply  for  admission 
into  the  Union."  *  *  * 

There  is  probably  little  reason  to  fear  that  a  policy  of  so  long 
standing  is  to  be  abandoned,  but  there  may  be  clanger  that  the  influ- 
ence of  sugar  producers  (who  cannot  be  injured  in  the  least  by  the 
importation  of  the  amount  of  sugar  raised  on  the  Hawaiian  Islands) 
may  win  votes  enough  to  weaken  the  moral  force  of  the  treaty  and 
keep  alive  the  intrigues  of  those  who  seek  to  undermine  the  influ- 
ence and  interest  of  the  United  States  in  the  Pacific. 


APPENDIX  '  H. 

The  following  abstract  of  Hawaiian  and  New  York  lawrs  will  in 
terest  those  who  wish  to  see  a  comparison  of  the  two  codes : 


HAWAIIAN  LAW. 

Civil  Code,  $  1397- — All  minors  above 
the  age  of  ten  years  may  be  bound  as  ap- 
prentices or  servants;  if  temales,  to  the  age 
of  18  years,  or  to  the  time  of  their  marriage 
with  that  age ;  or  if  males,  to  the  age  of  20 


NEW  YORK  LAW. 

2  R.  S.,  3d  ed.,  \  i,  p.  215. — Every  male 
infant  and  every  unmarried  female  under  the 
age  of  eighteen  (iS)  years,  with  the  consent 
qf  the  persons  or  officers  hereinafter  men 
tioned,  may,  of  his  or  her  own  free  will,  I  ind 


years,  in  manner  following  :  i  himself  or  herself,  in  writing,  to  serve  as  clerk. 

1.  By  the   father   of  such   minor,  or   if  he     apprentice,   or  servant   in    any  trade,  profes- 
be  dead  or  be  incompetent,  &c.,  then —  i  sion,  or  employment,  if  a  male,  until  the  age 

2.  By  the  mother,  &c.  '  of  21  years,  and  if  a  female  until  the   age  of 

3.  By  the  guardian,  &C.  1 8  years,  or   for  any  shorter  time,  and   such 

4.  By  the  governor  of  the  Island  in  which     binding  shall  be  as  effectual  as  if  tlie  infani 
such  minor  may  reside  were  of  full  <i^,  such  consent  must  be  given — 

4 


42 


1.  By  the   father  of  the  infant.     If  he  be 
dead,  or   be   not   in    a  legal   capacity  to  give 
consent,  then — 

2.  By  the  mother.  &c.;  then — 

3.  Then  by  the  guardian,  &c.;  then 

4.  By  the  overseers  of  the  poor  or  any  two 
justices  of  the  peace  or  any  county  judge  of 
the  county. 

2  R.  S.,  3d  ed.,  \  28. — If  any  person  law- 
fully bound,  &c.,  willfully  absents  himself 
without  leave,  he  must  serve  double  the  time 
of  such  absence  unless  he  shall  otherwise 
make  satisfaction,  but  such  additional  service 
cannot  extend  beyond  three  years  next  after 
the  original  term. 

2  R.  S.,  $  29. — If  any  person  refuses  to 
serve,  any  justice  of  the  peace  of  the  county, 
or  the  mayor,  recorder,  or  any  alderman  of 
the  city  where  he  shall  reside,  has  the  power 
to  commit  him  to  jail. 

2  R.  S.,  $  30-32.— If  any  apprentice  be 
guilty  of  any  misdemeanor  or  ill  behavior,  or 
any  master  be  guilty  of  any  cruelty,  &c.,  or 
of  any  violation  of  the  terms  of  the  inden- 
ture, complaint  may  be  made  to  any  two  jus- 
tices of  the  peace,  or  to  the  mayor,  &c..  who 
will  summons  the  parties  before  them,  and 
examine  into  the  grounds  of  complaint,  and 
if  the  same  be  well  founded  they  may  either 
commit  the  apprenticed  solitary  confinement 
in  the  common  jail  of  the  county  for  a  term 
not  exceeding  one  month,  there  to  be  em- 
ployed at  hard  labor,  or  discharge  the  offend- 
ing apprentice  from  his  service  and  the  mas- 
ter from  his  obligations;  or,  in  case  of  ill- 
usage  by  the  master,  discharge  the  apprentice 
from  his  obligations  of  service. 

2  R.  S.,  3d  ed.,  §§  21  and  42.— Upon  the 
death  of  any  master,  &c.,  the  executors  or 
administrators  may,  with  the  consent  of  the 
person  bound  to  service,  signified  in  writing 
and  acknowledged,  &c.,  assign  the  contract 
of  such  service  to  another  person.  If  the 
person  so  bound,  &c.,  refuses  to  give  such 
consent,  such  assignment  may  be  made  un- 
der the  sanction  of  the  court  of  sessions  of 
the  county,  &c.,  and  when  so  made  will  be 
as  valid  and  effectual  as  if  the  consent  had 
!  been  given  in  the  manner  aforesaid. 

It  is  evident  from  the  above  that  the  framers  of  Hawaiian  labor 
laws  were  guided  almost  entirely  by  the  New  York  laws  in  compiling 
them,  and  in  many  cases  adopted  the  exact  words. 


Civil  Code,  $  1317. — Any  person  who  has 
attained  the  age  of  twenty  years  may  bind 
him  or  herself  by  written  contract  to  serve 
another  in  any  art,  trade,  profession,  or  other 
employment  for  any  term  not  exceeding  five 
years. 

\  1419. — -If  any  person  lawfully  bound  to 
service  shall  willfully  absent  himself  from 
such  service  without  the  leave  of  his  master, 
&c.,  he  shall  be  compelled  to  serve  not  to 
exceed  double  the  time  of  his  absence,  &c., 
&c.,  provided  always  that  such  additional 
service  shall  not  extend  beyond  one  year  next  j 
after  the  end  of  the  original  term  of  service. 

1872,  Chapter  XXXI.—"  He  shall  be  paid 
wages  for  such  extra  time  at  the  rate  stipu- 
lated for  in  the  contract." 

1876,  amending  \  1420. — If  any  such  per- 
son shall  refuse  to  serve,  &c.,  masters  may 
apply  to  any  district  or  police  justice,  who 
may  fine  such  offender  not  exceeding  five 
dollars  for  the  first  offense,  and  for  every  sub- 
sequent offense  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  ; 
and  in  default  of  payment  thereof  such  of- 
fender shall  be  imprisoned  at  hard  labor  un- 
til such  fine  with  costs  are  paid. 

1872,    XXIV. — If    any    master    shall    be 
guilty  of  any  cruelty,  &c.,  or  violation  of  any 
of  the  terms   of  the  contract,  &c.,  such  per- 
son shall  be  discharged  from  all  obligation  of  ' 
service,  and  the  master  shall  be  fined  not  less  i 
than  five  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  • 
and  in  default  of  payment  thereof  be  impris- 
oned at  hard  labor  until   the  same  has  been 
paid. 

$  1424. — No  contract  of  service  made  in 
pursuance  of  sections  1417  and  1418  shall 
bind  the  servant  after  the  death  of  the  master. 

1872,  Chapter  XXXI. — No  contract  of  a 
married  woman  to  serve  another  shall  be 
valid  in  law,  &c.,  and  in  case  any  woman 
contracts  marriage  while  under  contract  to 
serve  another,  the  marriage  shall  operate  to 
annul  said  contract  of  service. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $t.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


OCT  12    1944 

*  A  nr  '"^ 

LIBRARY  USE 

AU6  15  1952 

fTtV/V*     Jfcro      I\A/fe 

ftUG  i  5  1952  LU 

^^sstt? 

AlPP      B  *Q9^ 

^ 

^^  1                                ...  .-    - 

nf  rt 

g  ^^J5 

>  >,  , 

%  A^jir/ 

S3? 

0 

tsff-  -Mft  Attf*  315! 

IOO 

JH-AUG^ 

^a 

LD  21-100m-12,'43  (8796s) 

iaylamount 
Pamphlet 

Binder 
Oayiord  Bros.,  Inc. 

Stockton,  Calif. 
T.  M.  Reg.  U.S.  Pat.  Off. 


M152378 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARV 


